Miles v. Worcester. Montgomery v. Muskegon B. Co...Negligence. ..........Infants.............. .154 Mass. 458.... 263 Mulligan v. New York etc. R'y Co..Railr'd companies..129 N. Y. 506.... 539 Railr'd companies.. 53 N. J. L. 217.. 421 Nebraska etc. Ins. Co. v. Chris-Insurance......... 29 Neb. 572..... 407 tiensen... North v. Platte County. Olney v. German Ins. Co..........Insurance......... 88 Mich. 94..... 281 O'Neil v. Dry Dock etc. R. R. Co.. Railr'd companies..129 N. Y. 125.... 512 ........Mun. corporations.. 29 Neb. 447..... 895 Pacific Express Co. v. Foley ......Carriers........ 46 Kan. 457..... 107 Pappenheim v. Metropolitan etc. Railr'd companies.. 128 N. Y. 436.......... 486 · Unlawful assembly.128 N. Y. 108.... 458 ..Trusts..... .154 Mass. 596.... 278 Manslaughter...... 27 Fla. 370...... 75 .Landlord and ten't. 154 Mass. 539.... 272 Price v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co..Negligence...... 33 S. C. 556..... 700 Prince, Ex parte....... Pullman etc. Co. v. Lowe...... Habeas corpus... 27 Fla. 196...... 67 .... ...Railr'd companies.. 28 Neb. 239.... 325 Radam v. Capital Microbe etc. Co.. Trade-marks................ 81 Tex. 122.............. 783 Reed v. Tacoma Building eto. Ass'n. Boundaries... Redden v. Metzger.. Rochefort v. Inhabitants of Attle-Mun. corporations..154 Mass. 140.......... 221 81 Tex. 644...... 837 154 Mass. 168.... 226 ....... 52 .Fraud. conveyances. 29 Neb. 76...... 373 State v. French................ State v. Jones State v. Nelson County.. State v. Quaid.... State v. Roubles ....... Conflict of laws....128 N. Y. 403.... 480 Adultery .........109 N. C. 764.... 599 ...Interstate comm'ce..109 N. C. 722.... 590 .... Gaming.... ...Embezzlement . Husband and wife..128 N. Y. 263........ 475 .Jurisdiction....... 46 Kan. 397..... 105 ...Ex'rs and adm'rs.. 81 Tex. 396...... 821 St. Louis etc. R'y Co. v. Davis....Railr'd companies.. 54 Ark. 389..... 48 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Dougherty..Tel. companies.... 54 Ark. 221..... 33 Western U. Tel. Co. v. Hoffman... Negligence... ........ 80 Tex. 420...... 759 Whitney v. City of Port Huron... Mun. corporations.. 88 Mich. 268.... 291 Railr'd companies.. 34 W. Va. 657 .. 927 ..........Marr, and divorce..154 Mass. 194.... 237 .......Co-tenancy........ 83 S. C. 404..... 689 CASES IN THE SUPREME COURT ARKANSAS. MURRELL V. PACIFIC EXPRESS COMPANY. [54 ARKANSAS, 22] COMMON CARRIERS - NEGLIGENT DELAY.-MEASURE OF DAMAGES for the breach of a contract of carriage by negligent delay includes such dam ages only as are the direct and immediate consequence of the breach, and deemed to have been contemplated by the parties when they made the contract, whether the carrier is a natural or an artificial person. If it is an express company, it is liable for the difference between the market value of the goods at the time and place where they ought to have been delivered and such value when they were delivered, together with any extra expense incurred in writing or telegraphing for them, but not for the difference between the price for which the shipper had contracted to sell them and their market value when and where they were delivered, unless the company was notified that they were shipped to complete sales already made. ACTION to recover damages for negligent delay in the transportation of trees. Plaintiff alleged that by reason of the carrier's negligent delay, he lost certain contracts for the sale of the trees, to his damage in the sum of $282; and that in waiting for them, he incurred expenses in the sum of $21.50. Defendant entered a general denial. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $16.50, as expenses incurred in waiting for the trees. He appealed. Blackwood and Williams, for the appellant. J. M. Moore, for the appellee. HEMINGWAY, J. Upon the question of negligence, the jury found against the defendant. It is therefore obvious that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by any error in the admission or |