Schoenlau v. Friesf
Decision Date | 04 December 1883 |
Citation | 14 Mo.App. 436 |
Parties | WILLIAM SCHOENLAU, Appellant, v. CONRAD FRIESF ET AL., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, LUBKE, J.
Affirmed.
C. A. SCHNAKE and P. E. BLAND, for the appellant.
LOUIS A. STEBER, for the respondent.
This is one of the best illustrations of concurring negligence that can be found. The defendant's servant negligently left his horse and wagon unhitched on the street in St. Louis.
The defendant's horses ran away, and, while so running, ran into and killed the plaintiff's horse, in consequence of the plaintiff's horse, on the approach of the defendant's horses, turning from where it stood into the middle of the street. A city ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to leave teams unhitched on the street. Both parties, therefore, are guilty of negligence as matter of law. If the defendant's servant had not been guilty of negligence in leaving the defendant's team unhitched, the plaintiff's horse would not have been killed. If the plaintiff had not been guilty of negligence in leaving his horse unhitched, his horse would not have been killed.
The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the judgment was for the defendant. The declarations of law which were given and refused, clearly indicate that the case was tried upon correct principles of law. We do not consider these at length, because, as the judgment was clearly for the right party it could not be disturbed, even if erroneous declarations of law had been given.
A new trial is asked for on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence claimed to have been discovered since the trial, was that of a person who swore that he was a witness to the catastrophe, and that the defendant's horses were running down the street in such a direction that the plaintiff's horse would not have been struck if it had not turned out into the street. Applications for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon by the courts with disfavor, and are never granted unless it appears that the evidence claimed to have been newly discovered would probably change the result. The learned judge, who was trier of the facts in the circuit court, had a much better opportunity than we have to judge whether the evidence claimed to have been discovered since the trial in this case would have changed the result. Indeed, we have no basis in this record on which to form a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blackburn v. Southwest Missouri Railroad Company
...1168; Schultz v. Milwaukee, 49 Wis. 254, 5 N.W. 342, 35 Am. Rep. 779; Taylor v. City, 64 Md. 68, 20 A. 1027, 54 Am. Rep. 759; Schouteau v. Friese, 14 Mo.App. 436; v. Railroad, 120 Mo. 635. (4) Defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to insulate the wires at the point where plaintiff was injured......
-
Blackburn v. Southwest Missouri R. Co.
...in and of itself at least a contributing cause of the injury. Weller v. Railroad, 120 Mo. 635, 23 S. W. 1061, 25 S. W. 532; Schoenlau v. Friese, 14 Mo. App. 436; Rowe v. Hammond, 172 Mo. App. 203, 157 S. W. 880; Williams v. City of St. Joseph, 166 Mo. App. 299, 148 S. W. Appellant contends ......
-
John G. Kupferle Foundry Company v. St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal Railway Company
...of a collision between the wagon and a railroad train on a highway crossing is such negligence as to prevent a recovery. In Schoenlaw v. Friese, 14 Mo.App. 436, both plaintiff defendant, in violation of an ordinance, left their horses unhitched on the street. One ran away and killed the oth......
-
John C. Kupferle Foundry Co. v. St. Louis M. B. T. Ry. Co.
...of a collision between the wagon and a railroad train on a highway crossing is such negligence as to prevent a recovery. In Schoenlau v. Friese, 14 Mo. App. 436, both plaintiff and defendant, in violation of an ordinance, left their horses unhitched on the street. One ran away and killed th......