Legal Opinion

Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 25, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). It is first earnestly insisted that a verdict should have been directed in favor of appellant. The suit was brought under the provisions of section 8568 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, commonly called the lookout statute. It was the contention of appellee that the appellant was negligent in failing to keep an efficient lookout as required fay the statute, and in failing- to give the statutory warnings for the approach of the train to the public crossing. Under Crawford & Moses’ Digest, section 8668, providing that, if any person or property shall be lulled…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Blytheville, Leachville & Arkansas Southern Railway Co. v. GessellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  2. Kelly v. DeQueen & Eastern RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  3. Huff v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
  4. First Nat. Bank of Electra v. Federal Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Baldwin v. BrimSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  2. Pye v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API