{
  "id": 1488309,
  "name": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Williams",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1943-03-08",
  "docket_number": "4-7004",
  "first_page": "428",
  "last_page": "431",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ark. 428"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "169 S.W.2d 123"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 S. W. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Ark. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556232
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/123/0365-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 506,
    "char_count": 7954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30741328934621287
    },
    "sha256": "6c1c31424a3873af43dbb57a98c17fc6dea0be688d736e21f3a02f63d7dc8ac7",
    "simhash": "1:5c7e88d3f343deb8",
    "word_count": 1363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:03.571044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Williams."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, C. J.\nHetla is a small community in St. Francis county traversed by appellant\u2019s railway, from which a switch line runs to Cooper\u2019s gin. Appellee procured judgment against the railway company for $1,921.35 to compensate loss of eighteen bales of cotton he claims to have delivered for shipment September 13, 1941. Before acknowledgment by the company that the cotton had been received it was destroyed by fire. The question is whether there was delivery.\nGladstone Williams, appellee\u2019s father, supervised picking, ginning, and marketing of his son\u2019s crop. During 1937 and 1938 Gladstone managed Cooper\u2019s gin. The railway company did not maintain an agent at Heth. When shipping facilities were required the conductor on a local freight operating between Brinkley and Memphis would be contacted, and in turn the conductor would have cars placed on the house track. Gladstone\u2019s explanation was that when the \u201clocal\u201d came in the conductor would call at the gin to ascertain if a shipment was ready, and would sign a receipt. Bills of lading were not issued. The witness recalled one occasion when the same train that brought an empty car waited until it was loaded and \u201cpicked it up\u201d for delivery in Memphis.\nW. M. Borum was manager of the gin in 1941 when appellee\u2019s cotton was destroyed. At that time a telegraph operator was stationed at Heth and transacted certain restricted business for the railway company. Friday morning, September 12, Borum asked the operator to inform the conductor a car was needed. 'Appellee was anxious to get the shipment into Memphis not later than the following day. Saturday afternoon, when the \u201clocal\u201d came from Brinkley, it stopped at Heth. A car was placed on the siding and the train proceeded five or six hundred yards to another gin. When Borum observed a freight car had been \u2018 \u2018 spotted, \u2019 \u2019 he assumed it was placed in response to the request he had made. At that time the cotton was on a platform.\nThere was the further assumption on Borum\u2019s part that the conductor, after completing his business at the gin east of Cooper\u2019s, would return and pick up the car. Only a short period of time \u2014 perhaps ten minutes \u2014 was required for loading. When work of placing cotton in the car was almost finished, witness got in a truck and hurried to the second gin to see the conductor, but before Borum reached his destination the train left. Borum thought the car was loaded about four o\u2019clock. The destructive fire occurred that night about eight o\u2019clock.\nIt is not contended the conductor, or anyone representing the railway company, actually knew cotton had been placed in the car, although Gladstone Williams testified, he explained to Borum on Friday that he wanted a bill of lading so it could be mailed to SternbergerMcKee in Memphis Monday. Evidence directly affecting attempted shipment was summed up in the question directed to Borum, \u201cAll you did was to tell the [telegraph operator] the day before \u2014 on Friday \u2014 that you wanted a car spotted to take out a shipment of cotton to Memphis? \u2019 \u2019 Answer, \u201cYes, sir. \u2019\u2019 [The same request was repeated on Saturday.]\nGladstone Williams was at the gin when the car was put on the sidetrack, and asked Borum to have the eighteen bales loaded. The work was done by five men under Borum\u2019s directions. Williams had prepared a bill of lading.\nW. D. Jones, colored, wlio helped load the car, testified no other shipments of cotton were made in 1941 by having the train wait to pick np a car which the same train had put on the siding to be loaded.\nConductor GvF. Padgett testified that the operator at Heth informed him on Friday or Saturday a box car was needed at Cooper\u2019s gin. Train records kept by the witness showed arrival at 12:45 and departure at 1:05. Padgett did not see any employes of the gin company, and, of course, had no conversation with them. The customary method of handling cotton from Cooper\u2019s gin was to evidence the transaction by a conductor\u2019s waybill, \u201cwhich is no more than a receipt for the shipment.\u201d He did not think it possible for the car to have been loaded with eighteen bales during the twenty-minutes stop at Heth. Witness had been on the Memphis-Brinkley run a year and had not handled any cotton from 'Cooper\u2019s gin. Prior to September 13, 1941, the gin company ordered three cars for loading. They remained \u201con spot\u201d for several days with only a small quantity of cotton in them, and were eventually taken out empty. In conclusion the witness testified, \u201cI have never been asked to give a receipt or a conductor\u2019s waybill for any cars, and they have never made an out-shipment over our line.\u201d\nTo dispose of this case by reversal or affirmance invokes a harsh rule. Clearly it was the shipper\u2019s in-tent, manifested through Borum, to have a car sidetracked in order that appellee\u2019s cotton might be shipped not later than Saturday, and in endeavoring to finish loading before the train left, diligence was displayed if, in fact,' the train did not reach Heth until nearly four o\u2019clock, as two of the witnesses for appellee testified from memory. If the conductor\u2019s records were correct and leaving-time was 1:05, loading- must have occurred after the train left. We must accept findings inferentially made by tbe jury tbat tbe train was at tbe east gin not later than 3:40, if twenty minutes be accepted as the stop-over period.\nIf we affirm, the railway company is required to pay for a commodity it had not accepted unless the naked act of sidetracking a car carried with it the implied invitation to make use of such facilities at the carrier\u2019s risk. The question then arises, To whom was the shipment to be delivered? There were no directions in this respect, no proof that the bales were marked as to consignee: nothing more than Borum\u2019s belief that the telegraph operator understood it was necessary that the cotton reach Memphis Saturday.\nMay liability be predicated upon this slender thread? The question seems to .have been answered by Mr. Justice Hart who wrote the court\u2019s views in Matthews & Hood v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway, 123 Ark. 365, 185 S. W. 461, L. R. A. 1916E, 1194. There is the relatively unimportant distinction between. the instant case and the Matthews decision that no agent was maintained at Gossett, and it was not 'contemplated that the same train that left a sidetracked car would wait for it to be loaded and then take it away. In the case at bar there is no substantial evidence of the custom appellee contends prevailed, although there is proof that Williams and Borum intended certain results.\nBut hopefulness does not necessarily acquire the attributes of law unless there has been dereliction of duty upon the part of the one sought to be charged. Unfortunately appellee\u2019s representatives took chances on leaving the cotton in a box car, loading of which was unknown to appellant. That loss must be sustained does not of itself fix responsibility; nor do facts bring the case within the rule that the shipper must account where there has been a completed act of delivery.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause dismissed.\nFrankness of testimony given by Borum is refreshing. The following question was asked by counsel for appellee: \u201cMr. [\u201cBat\u201d] Harrison asked you [regarding your conversations with the telegraph agent] ... I want you to make it clear to the jury whether, in these conversations \u2014 when you asked the agent for the car \u2014 state whether you made it clear to him that -you wanted the cotton brought out on Saturday.\u201d Answer: \u201cI believe he understood me that way.\u201d Question: \u201cIs that what you did say to him?\u201d \u201cThat is the impression I wanted to make on him \u2014 and to make sure [the cotton] went out on Saturday I tried to catch the conductor of the train.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thos. S. B%t,sbee, for appellant.",
      "Sam Gosten and Elton A. Rieves, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Williams.\n4-7004\n169 S. W. 2d 123\nOpinion delivered March 8, 1943.\nThos. S. B%t,sbee, for appellant.\nSam Gosten and Elton A. Rieves, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0428-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 451
}