54 N.W. 601 (S.D. 1893), Uhe v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
|Citation:||54 N.W. 601, 3 S.D. 563|
|Opinion Judge:||BENNETT, P. J.|
|Party Name:||UHE v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.|
|Attorney:||Winsor & Kittredge, for appellant. Palmer & Rogde, for respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 24, 1893|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Dakota|
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The case of Bailey v. Railway Co., 54 N.W. 596, (decided at the present term,) relating to the proper measure of damages when trees are negligently destroyed by fire or otherwise, is approved.
2. When a witness in his testimony voluntarily refers to a conversation he had with another party,--which conversation was not shown to be relevant to the case on trial,--for the purpose of fixing the time he first had knowledge of the facts to which he was testifying, the opposite party is not entitled to have the full details of that conversation, if objection is made.
3. It is error to enter judgment in a case when, after verdict, a stay of all proceedings has been ordered by the court, if the entry of the judgment was within the time in which the order is operative.
4. In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract it is a substantial error for the court to direct the jury to assess interest upon the amount of damages. The question of interest should be left to the discretion of the jury. See section 4578, Comp. Laws.
Appeal from circuit court, Turner county.
Action by August Uhe against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to recover for damages caused by defendant's burning the property of plaintiff. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
The complaint in this case alleges that the defendant negligently destroyed by fire the property of the plaintiff. The answer is a general denial. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict sustaining the allegations of the complaint, and judgment was rendered for the amount of the property alleged to be destroyed. From this judgment the defendant appeals.
The assignment of errors raises three questions for determination: First. What is the proper measure of damages where growing trees are negligently destroyed by fire, and how shall it be determined? Second. Was it error in refusing to allow the witness Stone to give all of a conversation, a part of which it is alleged had been brought out on examination? Third. Did the court err in denying defendant's motion to open the judgment for the purpose of allowing defendant to incorporate, prior to the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP