{
  "id": 1573346,
  "name": "Williams v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Missouri Pacific Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "134 Ark. 366"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Fed. 367",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3706355
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/115/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S. W. 1133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723280
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0916585847813251e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5657760355912642
    },
    "sha256": "2f2b9bebc117e637d8dc16795f2fd9d55ac295015888cf40d6a85574b12eb781",
    "simhash": "1:ebdde76c82099e6e",
    "word_count": 799
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:26:23.573803+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Williams v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WOOD, J.\nIn September and October, 1916, B. F. Bush, as receiver of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Eailway Company, was operating said railroad, and through the negligence of his employees, in the handling of certain cotton which was delivered to Bush as such receiver, for shipment, appellant was damaged in the sum of $620.\nAfter these damages had accrued to appellant, the property of the St. L., I. M. & S. E. Co., in the hands of Bush as receiver, was sold at foreclosure sale .and purchased by the appellee, Missouri Pacific Eailroad Co.\nTwo witnesses, who were neighbors of the appellant Within one year from the time the damages were sustained appellant instituted this action against the appellee, setting out at length- the above facts and praying for judgment .against the appellee in the sum of $620 and that same be declared a lien upon the property of the appellee.\nThe appellee demurred to the complaint. The court sustained the demurrer. ' Appellant rested, his case on the complaint, and a judgment was entered dismissing the same. This appeal is from that judgment.\nAppellant contends that he is entitled to have judgment against the appellee .and a lien declared on this property under section 6661, Kirby\u2019s Digest, which provides, among other things, as follows:\n\u201cEvery person who shall sustain loss or damage to person or property from .any railroad for which a liability may exist at law * * * shall have a lien on said railroad for said damages upon the roadbed, buildings, equipment, income, franchise, right-of-way and all other appurtenances of said railroad superior and paramount, whether prior, in time or not, to that of all persons interested in said railroad as managers, lessees, mortgagees, trustees and beneficiaries under trust or owners.\u201d\nIt is conceded by the appellee that under the above section the appellant would have been entitled to a lien on the property that passed to the appellee by the foreclosure sale, if he had complied with the further provisions of section 6662 of Kirby\u2019s Digest, which is as follows : \u2018 \u2018 The lien mentioned in the preceding section shall not be effectual unless suit shall be brought upon the claim or the claim shall be filed by order of court with the receiver of said railroad within one year after' said claim shall have accrued. \u2019 \u2019\nThe appellee is correct in its contention. \u25a0 The complaint does not .allege that any suit was filed against B. F. Bush, as receiver of the St. L., I. M. & S. R. Co., or that the claim was filed, by order of the court having jurisdiction over the receiver, with such receiver within one year after the claim accrued. This was essential as declared by section 6662, supra, in order to make appellant\u2019s lien effectual.\nThe meaning of the above statute is that, in order to make the lien, provided for therein, effectual, suit must be instituted upon the claim against the railroad company causing the damage, or if such company has passed into the hands of a receiver, then, by permission or order of the court, suit must be brought against the receiver 'or the claim filed with the receiver of such company within one year after the claim has accrued.\nThe complaint does not state a cause of action under section 6661, supra. See Kansas City Southern R. R. Co. v. King, 74 Ark. 368; Elliott on Railroads, Vol. 1, sec. 526. See 33 Cyc. 388.\nThe judgment is, therefore, correct and is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "L. C. Going, for appellant.",
      "Troy Pace, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Williams v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.\nOpinion delivered May 27, 1918.\nLiens \u2014 -property op raiilroad in hands op receiver \u2014 suit must be brought when and how. \u2014 Judgment can not be obtained against a railway company and a lien fixed against its property, under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 6661 and 6662, where the cause of action accrued while the railroad was in the hands of a receiver, and where the plaintiff, within one year after the accrual of the action, did not file suit on the claim, or file the claim by order of court, with the receiver.\nAppeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; W. J. Driver, Judge;\naffirmed.\nL. C. Going, for appellant.\nThe demurrer should have been overruled. The suit was filed within one year from the time the damages were sustained and appellant had a lien. Kirby & Castle\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 8172, 8173; 74 Ark. 528; 80 Id. 399; 74 Id. 366; 85 S. W. 1133; 115 Fed. 367. The complaint alleged all necessary facts and stated a good cause of action.\nTroy Pace, for appellee.\nThe demurrer was properly sustained. No suit was filed against the receiver, nor was the claim filed with the receiver as required by law. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 6661, 6662; 74 Ark. 368; 33 Cyc. 388; K. & C. Digest, \u00a7 8172-3."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 390,
  "last_page_order": 392
}