Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Hancock & Buchanan
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1ConcurrenceDoNham, J.
This is the second appeal of these cases, the opinion on the first appeal being’ reported in 187 Ark. 1007, 63 S. W. 2d 973. I am concurring in the majority holding solely on the ground that the law as announced on the first appeal is the law of the case on the second appeal. Since on the first appeal it was held to be a jury question as to whether or not the railroad company is liable, we must still hold under the same, or substantially the same, evidence that the question of liability was one for the jury. The jury having found for appellees, undei’ucorrect instructions, not questioned…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kruse v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Reed v. Baldwin, Trustees, Missouri Pac. Ry.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. ReedSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. BleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Williams v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.