DOWLING-SHANDS LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. E. HOGARTH, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1918-01-04
Bbowne, C. J., and Taylor and West, J. J., concur., Ellis, J., dissents.
74 Fla. 605 Florida Supreme Court (1918) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Dowling-Shands Lumber Company appealed a judgment for damages caused by its railroad killing plaintiff's livestock. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the defendant's tram road operation fell within the statutory framework providing for double damages and attorney fees when livestock are killed by railroad operations on unfenced property.


Holding

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that defendant's operation fell within the statutory framework applicable to railroads and railways. The defendant failed to specially plead that it did not own or operate a railroad or railway, and evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the value of the livestock killed.


Key Quotes

“Under the plea of not guilty the issue presented was the breach of duty or wrongful act alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Other matters should be specially pleaded.”

Establishes that under a general not guilty plea, only breach of duty is in issue and other defenses must be specially pleaded

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

On December 15, 1914, defendant's locomotive and train killed three cows valued at $35 each and one yearling valued at $15 near Peters' Creek on defen…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
Whitfield, J.

Whitfield, J.

The declaration herein alleges “that on or about December 15, 1914, in the County and State aforesaid, the Defendant carelessly and negligently without due precaution and regard for the property of others, and not having its track fenced as the law provides in such cases, did operate its locomotive and train of cars under a head of steam by its servants in said County upon its track and did so carelessly and negligently run its locomotive and train of cars in upon and against and killed three head of cows of the value of thirty-five dollars each, the property, goods: and chattels of Plaintiff amounting in value to the sum of one hundred and five dollars, at or near Peters’ Creek in said County, on the said tram road or track of the Defendant so operating a tram road, as aforesaid, and then and there carelessly and negligently killed said three head of cows of the value of one hundred and five dollars; also at the same time and place in like manner did kill one yearling of the value of fifteen dollars, all of the goods, chattels and property of the said Plaintiff, being the sum total of cattle so carelessly and negligently killed in the value of one hundred and twenty dollars, which the Plaintiff upon the 7th day of August, 1915, in writing served notice upon the Defendant, at its office in Green Cove Springs, Florida, a copy whereof is hereto attached and made a part hereof, demanding the payment of said sum of money within sixty days as the law provides in such cases. And the defendant failing to pay the same or any part thereof, therefore, the Plaintiff sues the Defendant and claims double damages, and a reasonable attorneys’ fee, in the sum of Two Hundred Dollars and costs.” Trial was had on a plea of - not guilty, and upon a verdict for the plaintiff for ‘ithe value of the four cattle killed at $120.00,” judgment for $200.00-and $25.00 attorney fees was rendered under the statute allowing double damages and attorney fee, the ad damnum clause in the declaration limiting the recovery to $200.00. A writ of error was taken by the defendant company.

Under the plea of not guilty the issue presented was the breach of duty or wrongful act alleged to have been committed by the defendant. Other matters should be specially pleaded. See Rule 71 Circuit Court Rules, Law Actions; Crawley’s Compiled Rules of Practice 34; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Sloan, 52 Fla. 257, 42 South. Rep. 516.

There was no special plea to present an issue as to whether the defendant owned or operated a railroad or railway within the meaning of the statute providing for the recovery herein sought when live stock is killed or injured “upon any railroad in this State by the engine, train or cars of any company or person or persons owning or operating the said railroad, said road not being fenced,” &c. Secs. 2871-2875 Gen. Stats. 1906, Compiled Laws 1914. These sections differ from section 3148 General Statutes of 1906, which is confined to “a railroad company.” See Taylor v. Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co., 61 Fla. 455, 54 South. Rep. 904; Ingram-Dekle Lumber Co. v. Geiger, 71 Fla. 390, 71 South. Rep. 552. See also Grace v. Geneva Lumber Co., 71 Fla. 31.

Evidence was adduced tending to show that the stock was killed by the defendant’s railroad trains; and there is sufficient testimony as to value to sustain the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Bbowne, C. J., and Taylor and West, J. J., concur. Ellis, J., dissents.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Dowling v. Nicholson, 135 So. 288 (Fla. 1931)
    …ugh, because the "breach of duty" or the "wrongful act" alleged is that it was the defendant and not some one else, who inflicted the injury. This is the same rule that was applied by this Court in Dowling-Shands Lumber Co. vs. Hogarth, 77 So. 614, 74 Fla. 605, cited by defendant in error. In that case the court pointed out that evidence was adduced "tending to show that the stock was killed by *Page 681 defendant's railroad trains" which was deemed sufficient under the plea of not guilty to prove liabili…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw