{
  "id": 1389753,
  "name": "Jonesboro Compress Company v. Simpson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jonesboro Compress Co. v. Simpson",
  "decision_date": "1930-11-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "698",
  "last_page": "701",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ark. 698"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 S. W. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0431-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S. W. 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ark. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1500992
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/76/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 S. W. (2d) 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ark. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1396949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/178/0753-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 361,
    "char_count": 5340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4110554321892898
    },
    "sha256": "6a974cb67524757bcd331d07c42a38b6382b5808bfafcc91801c7e653176223c",
    "simhash": "1:8e04ff44881b5715",
    "word_count": 932
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:23.350304+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jonesboro Compress Company v. Simpson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellant operated a compress at Jonesboro, received cotton from the appellees as warehouseman and stored it in section or shed \u201cA\u201d of the\u2019 compress which was totally destroyed \u00a1by fire during the noon hour on December 8, 1927.\nAppellees herein and many other owners of cotton which was destroyed in the fire brought separate suits in the circuit court of \u00a1Craighead County to recover the value of their respective lots of cotton.\nThe separate cases of appellees and those of H. J. Boolin, W. F. Rogers, Joe Edwards, W. \u00a1S. Harris, and Mrs. Mary Neyman were consolidated for the purposes of trial. After the consolidation W. S. Harris and Joe Edwards were each permitted to take a nonsuit in his case. The other cases were transferred on change of venue to the circuit court of Mississippi County, Chickasawba District, for trial. After the transfer of the consolidated oases to the latter county, Mrs. Mary Neyman took a nonsuit in her case. The other cases proceeded to trial upon the pleadings, testimony and the instructions, of the court which resulted in separate judgments in favor of each of the appellees for the value of his cotton, from which is this appeal.\nThe consolidated cases are companion cases with the consolidated cases which were before this court on appeal in the case of Jonesboro Compress Company v. A. W. Hall, 178 Ark. 753, 13 S. W. (2d) 298. The pleadings are identical, involving the same issue, and the testimony in the two cases is not materially different. The issue joined was succinctly stated in the Hall case, supra, and the facts were fully set out therein,.so reference is made to that cas\u00e9 for a statement of both the issue and the facts, rather than to restate them in the instant case.\nThe undisputed facts in the instant case reflect that section \u201cA\u201d of the compress company, containing about 3,000 bales of cotton, was left during the noon hour without any employee under any instruction to watch or guard against fire. True, the foreman, Peter Batch, testified in the instant case that when he left the compress at four \u00a1minutes after 12:00 o\u2019clock he left Will Shelton, Charlie Watson, Robert Snow, Joe Perkins, Mack Campbell and Annie Williams there, and that, had it not been that they were to remain in the compress during the noon hour, he would not have left the compress. He did not testify as to what he would or would not have done in the Hall case, siopra. The parties mentioned by him were negro laborers, none of whom worked or were paid during the noon hour except Snow. Snow and Watson were in the boiler room which was separated from section \u201cA\u201d by a fire wall, and to get into section \u201cA\u201d they would have to go on an outside platform fifty feet. The others were accustomed to and did go into the old office, for the purpose of eating their dinner, adjoining section \u201cA\u201d but also separated from it by a wall containing some windows up quite a distance above the floor. None of them were watching or guarding section \u201cA\u201d against fire, and did not observe or discover the fire until too late to extinguish it. We do not think the additional testimony of the foreman changed the condition or situation in the least from the situation and condition reflected by the record in the Hall case, supra. The record in the Hall case reflected that section \u201cA\u201d ivas abandoned during the noon hour, and the record in the instant case reflects that no duty was imposed upon the employees by the foreman to watch and protect section \u201cA\u201d during the noon hour, and as a matter of fact none of them remained in section \u201cA\u201d during the noon hour.\nThe law of negligence declared and applied in the Hall case was declared and applied in the instant case, and correctly so, as the facts of the two cases are parallel in all material respects. The instant case therefore is ruled by the Hall case, supra.\nAppellant contends for a reversal of the judgments because a change of venue was granted to appellees after consolidation of the cases without sufficient affidavits in each and every case, naming four of the cases in which the affidavits were defective or insufficient. Appellant has not favored us with an abstract of the proceedings on the question of removal, and we cannot intelligently pass upon this contention and therefore refrain from doing so.\nAppellant also contends for a reversal of the judgments because, after the cases were consolidated, three of the parties were permitted to 'take nonsuits. They were permitted to dismiss their suits under \u00a7 1261 of Crawford & Moses \u2019 Digest, and that section accords them the privilege and right to dismiss their causes before the final submission of same to the jury or court. Carpenter v. Dressler, 76 Ark. 400, 89 S. W. 89. It is even within the sound discretion of the court to permit a non-suit without prejudice after final submission of the cause. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. White Sewing Machine Co., 69 Ark. 431, 64 S. W. 96. The mere fact that cases are consolidated for the\u2019 purposes of trial cannot take from a party his statutory right to dismiss his suit under said section of the statute.\nNo error appearing, the judgments are affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. P. Matties, for appellant.",
      "Caraway, Balcer $ Cautney; Knott S Spencer and Gordon Frierson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jonesboro Compress Company v. Simpson.\nOpinion delivered November 17, 1930.\nE. P. Matties, for appellant.\nCaraway, Balcer $ Cautney; Knott S Spencer and Gordon Frierson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0698-01",
  "first_page_order": 718,
  "last_page_order": 721
}