Cantwell v. Pacific Express Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Eastern District. James E. Riddick, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was to recover the sum of $10.00, the value of what appellant designates “a venison saddle,” which was received by appellee company for transportation to St. Louis, Mo., and which appellant claims was lost through the negligence of the express company in not shipping as per contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court, Eastern District. James E. Riddick, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This suit was to recover the sum of $10.00, the value of what appellant designates “a venison saddle,” which was received by appellee company for transportation to St. Louis, Mo., and which appellant claims was lost through the negligence of the express company in not shipping as per contract. The appellant exhibits the receipt of the express company which reads . “Received from R. H. Cantwell the following articles which we undertake to forward, etc.” The venison was delivered to the express…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
1. Person in •whose name contract is made may sue. (after stating- the facts.) The court erred in giving- the fourth instruction. The contract was made with appellant, as evidenced by the receipt to him, and he had the right to sue. Mansf. Dig. sec. 4936 ; Pomeroy, Rem. & Remed. Rights, sec. 223.
2. When express company liable for delay. In view of further proceedings, it is proper to say that the instruction given by the court upon its own motion correctly declared the law applicable to the facts, and instructions 1, 2 and 3 should not have been given.
Por the errors indicated, the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Carter v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- American Railway Express Company v. ColeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Mixon-McClicntock Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1913