Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Edwards

96 S.W. 1061, 80 Ark. 273, 1906 Ark. LEXIS 116
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 15, 1906·Published

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The court did not err in refusing to direct a peremptory verdict for appellant. The question of negligence was for the jury, and it was submitted upon correct instructions, and the evidence was ample to sustain the verdict. Indeed, so patent was the conflict in the testimony, and so purely was this a question of fact for the jury, that it appears to us that the appeal in this case must have been taken for delay merely. The judgment is therefore affirmed with the statutory penalty in such cases. See St. Louis, M. & S. E. Rd. Co. v. Shannon, 76 Ark. 166; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Kimbertain, 76 Ark. 100; St. Louis & S. F. Rd. Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ark. 37; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Carlisle, 75 Ark. 560.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Edwards, 96 S.W. 1061, 80 Ark. 273, 1906 Ark. LEXIS 116 (Ark. 1906).

96 S.W. 1061 (Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Edwards) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Carlisle
88 S.W. 584 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Thompson
88 S.W. 593 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Kimberlain
88 S.W. 599 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Shannon
88 S.W. 851 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)