Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. State

116 S.W. 193, 89 Ark. 136, 1909 Ark. LEXIS 59
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 25, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.W. 193 (Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. State, 116 S.W. 193, 89 Ark. 136, 1909 Ark. LEXIS 59 (Ark. 1909).

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) “We- have repeatedly held that the penalty for the failure of a railroad company to ring a bell or sound a whistle at a highway crossing is recoverable by civil action onfy.” Choctaw, O. & G. Rd. Co. v. State, 75 Ark. 369; Railway Company v. State, 56 Ark. 166; Railway Company v. State, 55 Ark. 200; Kansas City S. & M. Rd. Co. v. State, 63 Ark. 134; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. State, 68 Ark. 561. The -cause should have been treated and tried as a civil action. Treating the indictment as a complaint in a civil suit, it did not state a cause of action. The motion to make more specific should have been granted. That having been overruled, the demurrer was well taken, and should have been-sustained. Railway Co. v. State, 59 Ark. 165; Little Rock & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 66 Ark. 278; Little Rock & Ft. Smith Ry. Co. v. State, 69 Ark. 363; Choctaw, O. & G. Rd. Co. v. State, 74 Ark. 159; Choctaw, O. & G. Rd. Co. v. State, 75 Ark. 369.

The confession of error is sustained, and -the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded -with directions to sustain demurrer, with leave, if appellee desires, to make complaint more specific.

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

Related

Railway Co. v. State
17 S.W. 806 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1891)
Railway Co. v. State
19 S.W. 572 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1892)
Railway Co. v. State
26 S.W. 824 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)
Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad v. State
37 S.W. 1047 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)
Little Rock & Fort Smith Railway Co. v. Smith
50 S.W. 502 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1899)
Saint Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. State
60 S.W. 654 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1901)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. State
63 S.W. 804 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1901)
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. State
85 S.W. 85 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. State
87 S.W. 631 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 S.W. 193, 89 Ark. 136, 1909 Ark. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisiana-arkansas-railway-co-v-state-ark-1909.