St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. McClerkin
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Wood
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- motion to dismiss
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court denied the defendant's motion for a more definite statement and bill of particulars, allowing the plaintiff's false arrest complaint to proceed as stated. The defendant was granted 20 days to file a responsive pleading.
Excerpt
<p>Appeal from Drew Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge;</p> <p>STATEMENT BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Appellee sued appellant in a justice’s court, alleging that appellant was a corporation; that he was employed by it on May 28, 1907, and was to be paid $108 per month, and that he continued in its employ until June 11, following, a period of fifteen days, when he was discharged and refused further employment by the appellant. That there was due him at the time of his discharge $54, and that he asked that the money or a valid check be be sent to him at Monticello, Arkansas, a station of the defendant at which an agent was kept. That check was not sent as requested, and that the said sum has never been paid him, and is still due and unpaid. That, by the failure to send the money or a valid check within seven days after his discharge, the wages of -the plaintiff continued -for sixty days at the contract rate, or $216; that nothing has been paid thereon, and the same is due and owing. And plaintiff prayed judgment for $270, with interest from the time same became due.</p> <p>Appellee adduced evidence to show that he was employed by appellant to serve in the capacity of station agent at Monticello, Ark.; that he worked for appellant fifteen days, and was to receive for his wages the sum of $52.50; that after he was discharged he made written demand on appellant’s superintendent for his wages, wrote him three times; that he asked the station agent at Monticello to send in his time. Appellee introduced the following letter:</p> <p>“Memphis, Tenn., Sept. 23, 1907.</p> <p>“Mr. J. G. Lorton, Supt.,</p> <p>“Monroe, La.</p> <p>“Dear Sir:</p> <p>“Enclosed please find voucher No. 5457 for $19.80 in favor of myself for services rendered at Monticello, Arkansas, in the absence of O. J. Lindsay, agent, account of sickness. I cannot accept this amount for my service, as I was running the station while the agent was sick. Your division agent, Mr. Wright, stated that he would see that I was
Similar Rulings
<p>Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; John W. Meeks, Judge;</p> <p>1. The White River Railway Company having bought the right of way, the vendor could not maintain an action for a wrong where he consented to the act which caused the injury. 47 Ark. 334. If it became necessary to blast rock, and in so doing this rock fell on the yendor’s land, the railway company was not liable to its grantors for damages growing out of the same. 54 Ark. 424.</p> <p>2. Under the proof the subcontractors who had the work in charge were independent contractors, and they alone were liable for the wrongful acks if wrongful. '58 Ark. 503; 54 Ark. 524; 76 Ark. 333; 55 Ark. 510;>7 Ark. 551.</p> <p>3. Appellant St. Lou.Sj Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company never became the owner of the White River Railroad until long after the alleged torts were done. It could not be held liable in this case.</p> <p>A demand based upon a tort is not assignable. 18 Barb. 510'; 22 Barb. 112; 1 Abb. 33; 12 Abb. 149; 15 Abb. 345; 7 How. Pr. 493; 6 Cal. 456; 3 Kernan, 322. Matters arising ex delicto pass no title to assignee by assignment. 2 March, 136; 1 Litt. 298; 9 Dana, 381. In an action ex delicto commenced by the assignee, where the assignor is not made a party, the plaintiff will not be allowed to amend by substituting the name of the assignor. Newman’s PI. & Pr. 84; 2 Barb. 311. See, also, 47 Ark. 541.</p>
<p>Appeal from Izard Circuit Court; John W. Mrrks, Judge;</p> <p>1. The appellant was not responsible for the negligence or wrongful acts of an independent contractor. 53 Ark. 503; 55 Ark. 510.</p> <p>2. It was error to admit testimony to establish a parol contract to fix the fences in time to make a crop. The deed could not be varied by parol evidence.</p> <p>3. The court admitted improper testimony as to the value of the crop. For measure of damages, see 56 Ark. 612.</p> <p>1. Land outside of the right of way was taken and appropriated to the use of the appellant in the construction of its roadway ; hence the company, and not- the contractor, was liable for the damage. Elliott on Railroads, § 1063. It is liable for the consequent destruction of the fence. Ib. And for making roads on the land. Ib.</p> <p>2. The agreement to fix the fence in time to protect the crop was contemporaneous with, and a part of the consideration for, the making of the deed, and parol evidence was admissible to prove it. 55 Ark. 112; 27 Ark. 510; 128 Pa. 337; 138 Pa. 230; 156 Mass. 108.</p>
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.