{
  "id": 1505544,
  "name": "Arkansas Central Railroad Company v. State. (1)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Central Railroad v. State",
  "decision_date": "1904-02-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "251",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ark. 250"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721036
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/63/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ark. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322249
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ga. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ark. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ark. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1329177
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/58/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ind. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1472598
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/23/0553-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893398
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 Ind. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1631478
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/140/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 Ind. 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1399011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/131/0468-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0322-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3071,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0601642171306796e-07,
      "percentile": 0.556881308524165
    },
    "sha256": "cca4d9686d4f4c004b99b8c0b9e8af9f2e0d9815f8a6c9850d29cd34250b775d",
    "simhash": "1:c0cfc26122d404d5",
    "word_count": 548
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:55:00.960408+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arkansas Central Railroad Company v. State. (1)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nIn these two cases the state of Arkansas sought to recover of the Arkansas Central\u2019Railroad Company a penalty of $200 on account of failure to give signals by ringing a bell or whistling at a crossing of a public road by its railroad, in Sebastian county, according to Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 6196. In each case the failure to ring a bell or whistle was alleged and proved to have occurred in the month of November, 1899. At that time the locomotives, cars and trains of the defendant were in the exclusive possession of a receiver, placed there by an order of a' court of competent jurisdiction, the defendant having no control over the same.\nThe state recovered a judgment, against the defendant for the penalty, and it appealed.\nThe possession of the receiver was not the possession of the appellant, but was antagonistic thereto; and it (appellant) had no right to possess, control or manage its trains to any extent and in any manner while in the hands of the receiver, and consequently it was not responsible for the negligence of the receiver and his servants or agents in operating the railroad, and their failures to ring a bell or sound a whistle at public crossings. Memphis & Little Rock Railway Co. v. Stringfellow, 44 Ark. 322.\nAppellant filed a motion to require the appellee to make its complaint more definite and certain, and the court refused to sustain it. As the motion was not made a part of the record by bill of exceptions (Line v. State, 131 Ind. 468, and Arnold v. Arnold, 140 Ind. 199) and the overruling of it was not made a ground of the motion for a new trial, we cannot consider it.\nThe judgment of the trial court is therefore set aside, and a judgment for appellant upon' the merits is rendered here.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oscar L. Mile's, for appellant, on case No. 4819.",
      "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arkansas Central Railroad Company v. State. (1)\nOpinion delivered February 27, 1904.\n1. Railroad company \u2014 liability por acts op receiver. \u2014 -Where the trains of a railroad company were in the exclusive possession of a receiver, the railroad company will not be liable for the failure of the receiver\u2019s employees to signal at a public crossing, as required by Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 6196. (Page 231.)\n2. Appeal \u2014 mode oe bringing motion into record. \u2014 Where a motion to require the plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain was not made part of the record by bill of exceptions, and the overruling of it was not made a ground of the motion for a new trial, it will not be considered on appeal. (Page 231.)\nAppeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District.\nStyles T. Rowe, Judge.\nReversed.\nOscar L. Mile's, for appellant, on case No. 4819.\nSand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 6196, requiring certain signals to be given at railroad crossings, does not apply to receivers. 44 Ark. 322; Pierce, Railroads, 285; High, Rec. \u00a7 396; 23 Ind. 553; 58 Ark. 43; 38 Ark. 521; 59 Ark. 356; 55 Ark. 302; 26 S. N. 486; 2 Elliott, Railroads, \u00a7 577; 60 Eed. 176; 5 Ga. 481. The court erred in not requiring the complaint to be made more definite and certain. 55 Ark. 200; 59 Ark. 168; 63 Ark. 134.\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 266,
  "last_page_order": 267
}