Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Kirby
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court; B. H. Dudley, Judge; The instruction numbered 6, given by the court, was abstract and misleading. Its-effect was to allow the jury to consider evidence insufficient to support a verdict.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cross Circuit Court; B. H. Dudley, Judge; The instruction numbered 6, given by the court, was abstract and misleading. Its-effect was to allow the jury to consider evidence insufficient to support a verdict. Worthen v. Smith, 149 Ark. 278. Proof that the company received cotton at the gin platform at some isolated and remote town is not sufficient to establish a custom. 17 Ark. 428; 58 Id. 125; 137 Id. 137. Evidence sufficient to establish a local custom must be clear and convincing, and show that it had existed long enough to have become generally known. 108 Ark. 437; 105 Id.…
1Opinion of the CourtWood, J.
This is an action by the appellee against the appellant for damages for personal injuries. The appellee alleged that on the 19th of November, 1920, he delivered on the cotton platform of appellant in the town of Parkin, Arkansas, one bale of cptton which appellant’s agent received and tagged; that thereafter such agent directed the appellee to move the cotton to another point on the platform, and, while undertaking to move the cotton as directed by the agent, a defective plant in the platform broke and caused the injury to the appellee to his damage in the sum of $1,800, for which he prayed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. Malvern Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Burr & Co. v. Sickles & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1856
- Beal-Burrow Dry Goods Co. v. LevySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
3Cited by2 opinions
- Atlas Life Insurance Co. v. BollingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Hill, GuardianSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1938