St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Myer

Supreme Court of Arkansas

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Myer

86 S.W. 999, 75 Ark. 159, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 556

DecidedApril 22, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.W. 999 (St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Myer) 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

St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Myer, 86 S.W. 999, 75 Ark. 159, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 556 (Ark. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The presumption of negligence arising from the condition of the potatoes at the time of delivery is fully explained by the evidence. The proof shows that appellant was not negligent, either as warehouseman or carrier. There was no delay in the transportation of the potatoes after they were received by appellant. Appellant had them in its possession as carrier only one day. There was nothing in the appearance of the car when received by appellant to put it on notice of the defective condition. It was in apparent good order. It was furnished to appellee by the Illinois Central. The consignors of appellee received it at St. Louis, and sacked and reloaded the potatoes into it, and it was then delivered by the Illinois Central to appellant, as the last and connecting carrier, in apparently good condition, and transported by it promptly from Gray’s Point to the place of destination, and there promptly offered, to appellee, who requested that appellant keep it, which was done. It appears to us that, if there be any actionable negligence in this case, it was in the furnishing of a defective car, and for that appellant was in no wise responsible.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The presumption of negligence arising from the condition of the potatoes at the time of delivery is fully explained by the evidence. The proof shows that appellant was not negligent, either as warehouseman or carrier. There was no delay in the transportation of the potatoes after they were received by appellant. Appellant had them in its possession as carrier only one day. There was nothing in the appearance of the car when received by appellant to put it on notice of the defective condition. It was in apparent good order. It was furnished to appellee by the Illinois Central. The consignors of appellee received it at St. Louis, and sacked and reloaded the potatoes into it, and it was then delivered by the Illinois Central to appellant, as the last and connecting carrier, in apparently good condition, and transported by it promptly from Gray’s Point to the place of destination, and there promptly offered, to appellee, who requested that appellant keep it, which was done. It appears to us that, if there be any actionable negligence in this case, it was in the furnishing of a defective car, and for that appellant was in no wise responsible.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.W. 999, 75 Ark. 159, 1905 Ark. LEXIS 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-railway-co-v-myer-ark-1905.