Case Name: DAVIS et al. v. ALEXANDRIA & W. RY. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1919-11-03
Citations: 152 La. 898
Docket Number: No. 23759
Parties: DAVIS et al. v. ALEXANDRIA & W. RY. CO.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 897–901

Head Matter:
(94 South. 436)
No. 23759.
DAVIS et al. v. ALEXANDRIA & W. RY. CO.
(Nov. 3, 1919.
On the Merits, Nov. 27, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
(. Appeal and error &wkey;389(I) — Appeal not dismissed because case consolidated for trial with ease in which pauper áffidavit was insufficient. '
Appeals in cases properly tried and appealed in forma pauperis will not be dismissed because they were consolidated for trial with another case in which the affidavit for prosecution of the suit in forma pauperis was insufficient.
2. Appeal and error <§=»227 — Objection and exception not mentioning ground insufficient to raise question of sufficiency of pauper affidavit.
Objection to motion and orders for prosecution and appeal of case in forma pauperis and bill of exceptions reserved thereto, not mentioning the ground of objection, were insufficient to raise the question of the sufficiency of the affidavit, as the court might have ruled differently, or the necessary affidavit might have been furnished if the ground of objection had been stated.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On the Merits.
3. Railroads <&wkey;3l6(2) — Speed consistent with safety of train not excessive in country.
' In the open country outside of.city limits any speed is legitimate for a railroad train, which is consistent with the safety of such train.
4i. Railroads. &wkey;309 — Not required to stop trains at stations.
There is no rule of law, or reason in common sense, why a railroad company should be required to stop all or any of its trains at all stations on the line of its road.
5. Railroads &wkey;309 — Mistake in emergency not actionable.
Where, in an emergency, the engineer of a railroad train promptly takes such measures to avoid an accident as then seem best, it is not a fault oh his part that he might have erred in judgment, and that the accident might have been avoided ha'd some other course been followed.
Appeal from Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides; Jas. Andrews, Judge.
Consolidated actions by Mrs. Earl Davis and others against the Alexandria & Western Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
R. F. Liebler and John Henry Mathews, both of Alexandria, for appellants.
Blackman & Overton, of Alexandria, for appellee.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
By the WHOLE COURT as then constituted.
PRO YO STY, J.
Three separate suits, filed by three different plaintiffs are included in the record of this case. As these suits grew out of the same railway accident, and involved the same inquiry into the circumstances of the accident! they were consolidated for trial in the lower court. Judgment went against the plaintiffs, and an appeal was moved for and granted in each case. As the cases had been prosecuted in forma pauperis, and the appeals had been granted in the same form, it was not thought necessary to give bonds of appeal, and none were given. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeals, for the reason that in one of the cases, that of Murphy, the affidavit required by law for the prosecution of a suit in forma pauperis was not made, and that therefore the trial court was without authority to allow the case to be tried, or appealed, in that form, so that the appeal stands without a bond and must in consequence be dismissed, and that the appeals in the two other cases must also be dismissed, because the cases were tried with this Murphy Case and the costs of the trial were incurred in the three cases conjointly.
We do not see the necessity of this consequence. These two cases were properly tried and appealed in forma pauperis. Why, then, may not' the appeal in them stand without a bond? and why should their having been consolidated for trial with the Murphy Case make any difference in the premises?
When the motion and the orders were made for the prosecution and the appeal of the Murphy Case in forma pauperis, defendant objected, and reserved a bill of' exception ; but did not mention the ground on which the objection was founded, so as to afford the trial court an opportunity to pass advisedly upon the objection. This form of objection was insufficient. Non constat that the court would not have ruled differently if the objection had been made properly, and that the necessary affidavit would not have been furnished at once if its absence had been mentioned.
The motion to dismiss is denied.