St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Busick
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. The complaint did not state a cause of action. Sand. & H. Dig. § § 6238, 6239; 72 S. W. 574; 55 S. W. 134; 68 S. W. 879; 57 Ark. 16; 72 S. W. 574; 47 Ark. 330. The complaint was sufficient under the statute. Kirby’s Dig. § § 6644, 6645. Whether or not the cattleguard was properly constructed was a question for the jury. 70 Ark. 431; 71 Ark. 235.
1Opinion of the CourtHiee, C. J.
Busick sued the railway company, alleging that it constructed a cattleguard in such a negligent and defective manner that it would not prevent the passage of stock over it, and left it in an unsafe condition, and that by reason thereof his mare was injured in it, and died from such injuries; and prayed ■judgment for her value. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled; issue taken on the answer; a trial by jury and verdict for Busick; and from judgment thereon the railroad has appealed. Among other instructions the court gave this:
“If the jury find from a preponderance of the evidence that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Railway Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
- Choctaw & Memphis Railroad v. GosetSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. v. WalbrinkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Choctaw & Memphis Railway Co. v. VosburgSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. GreerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
- Pluym v. Illinois Central RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1921
- Hester v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1920