Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Consumers Coal Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. This suit is not prosecuted by the shipper of the coal, under the Act No. 1903, Acts 1907, -but by the consignee. The act is penal and should be strictly construed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; 1. This suit is not prosecuted by the shipper of the coal, under the Act No. 1903, Acts 1907, -but by the consignee. The act is penal and should be strictly construed. The language is plain and the forfeiture is to the shipper and to no one else. 2. .Defendant should have been allowed four days to carry the shipment; the court below assessed penalties on a three days’ movement from Hartford to Little Rock. Boone-ville is a divisional point, where freight destined east must be taken from the trains and placed in other…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, which may be summarized as follows: The appellant railroad company operates a line of railroad from and through this State. Hartford is a station in Arkansas on this railroad, 147 miles west of Little Rock, which is also located on said railroad. Between the stations of Hartford and Little Rock is located the station of Booneville, which is a division point on said line of railroad. Carload freight, consigned from Hartford, and other stations west of Boone-ville, destined for points east of Booneville, are handled into the station of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. TonnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Templeton v. Equitable Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. MarxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Roberts Cotton Oil Co. v. GradySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Brownfield v. Dudley E. Jones Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.