Legal Opinion

Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Yancey

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 29, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating' the facts). The first assignment of error is that the testimony is not legally sufficient to warrant the verdict. In this contention we cannot agree with counsel. The question whether White, as alleged 'by the plaintiff, was acting within the general scope of his authority as a special agent for the defendant'company, was one of fact. To warrant a submission of the question to the jury, the evidence for the plaintiff, when viewed in its most favorable light, must be sufficient to make it appear that the false arrest was caused by an agent acting in the scope of his…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hodges v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  2. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. OwingsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  3. Dickinson v. MuseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Erwin v. MilliganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  2. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. WallerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
  3. Floyd v. RichmondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  4. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. StuckeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API