Harvey v. Rose
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court. ÍIon. James M. Hanks, Circuit Judge. The instructions given by the court on the motion was manifestly wrong; ferrymen are common carriers.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court. ÍIon. James M. Hanks, Circuit Judge. The instructions given by the court on the motion was manifestly wrong; ferrymen are common carriers. Spring v. Turner, 1 Murphy, 339-, Trent v. Cartersville Bridge Co., 11 Leigh,. 591; Rutherford v. McG-awen, 1 note, 3 McCord,. 17; Gardner v. Green, 8 Ala. 96; Cohen v. líume, 1 McCord, Ifá.; Pomeroy v. Donaldson, 5 Missouri, SO; Smith v. Seward, 3 Barr. 31$. “ The law regards ferrymen as common carriers, and has imposed on them the same duties and liabilities, and as soon as a ferryman signifies his assent or readiness to…
1Opinion of the CourtIIak-risox, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover from the owner of a public ferry, the value of a mule lost in the course of transportation. •
The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the verdict was in his favor.
The facts, as set forth in the plaintiff’s bill of exceptions are, that the plaintiff applied to cross with his wagon and team, at the defendant’s ferry, on the St. "Francis river. The wagon was loaded with cotton, and the team, vrhieh was driven by a servant, consisted of six mules. Before entering the boat, the person in charge of the ferry directed the two leading, or front span of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Willetts v. Buffalo & Rochester RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Powell v. MillsMississippi Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by7 opinions
- Terre Haute & Logansport Railroad v. SherwoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Little Rock & Ft. Smith Railway Co. v. PankhurstSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
- Johnson v. StewartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Importers' & Exporters' Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Yerkes v. SabinIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.