Midland Valley Railroad v. Horton

165 S.W. 266, 112 Ark. 125, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 213
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 16, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 S.W. 266 (Midland Valley Railroad v. Horton) 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
Midland Valley Railroad v. Horton, 165 S.W. 266, 112 Ark. 125, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 213 (Ark. 1914).

Opinion

Wood, J.

The appellee sued appellant, alleging that he was a passenger, having procured a ticket entitling him to passage on appellant’s train from Fort Smith to Williams, Okla., and that with this ticket in his possession he appeared at the train of appellant at its station in Fort Smith and offered and proposed to enter said train “when the employee and agent of appellant illegally and wrongfully refused to allow appellee to enter the car and with force and violence prevented appellee from entering the train.” The trial resulted in a judgment for the sum of $3.75, and upon the motion of appellee judgment was also entered in his favor against appellant for $25 attorney’s fee to be paid as part of the costs. The appellant appealed from the judgment allowing the attorney’s fee.

Section 6621 of Kirby’s Digest provides that: “In all actions at law or suits in equity against any railroad company * # * for the violation of any law regulating the transportation of freight or passengers by any such railroad, if the plaintiff recover in any such suit or action he shall also recover a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be taxed as part of the costs.”

This court has held that the above statute applies only to actions for the violation of statutory provisions regulating the transportation of freight and passengers. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Evans, 94 Ark. 324; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Knight, 81 Ark. 429; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Marx, 72 Ark. 357.

The cause of action alleged in the complaint is not based upon the violation of any statutory provision regulating the transportation of passengers.

The judgment for attorney’s fee is therefore erroneous and it is reversed and remanded with directions to annul the judgment allowing an attorney’s fee.

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

Related

Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. v. Coxwell
30 S.W.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1930)
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Consumers Coal Co.
193 S.W. 93 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 S.W. 266, 112 Ark. 125, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midland-valley-railroad-v-horton-ark-1914.