Louisville, N.A.&C. Ry. Co. v. Hart
Decision Date | 05 June 1889 |
Citation | 119 Ind. 273,21 N.E. 753 |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Parties | Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Hart et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Porter county; E. C. Field, Judge.
Geo. W. Easley and G. R. Eldridge, for appellant. H. A. Gillitt and J. W Youche, for appellees.
This is an action brought by the appellees against the appellant, whereby they seek to recover damages for the loss of a certain lot of hay which they allege was burned and destroyed because of the appellant's negligence. The complaint is in one paragraph. The appellant first filed a demurrer thereto, alleging want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which was overruled by the court, to which ruling it excepted, and then filed an answer in general denial. The issue joined was submitted to a jury, who returned a special verdict. After the return of the verdict appellant moved for a venire de novo, which was overruled and an exception reserved. It then moved to strike out parts of the verdict, which motion was overruled and an exception taken. It then moved to reject the verdict, which motion was overruled and an exception saved. It then moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled and an exception reserved, after which the court rendered judgment for the appellees. There are several errors assigned: (1) Error of the court in overruling the demurrer to the complaint; (2) error committed by the court in refusing instructions asked by the appellant; (3) the court erred in instructions given on its own motion; (4) the court erred in overruling the motion for a venire de novo; (5) error committed by the court in overruling the motion to strike out parts of the special verdict; (6) error of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial; and (7) that the court erred in rendering judgment for the appellees on the special verdict of the jury.
The giving, or refusal to give, instructions cannot be assigned as error in this court, but must be assigned as reasons for a new trial, and are brought before the court for review under the assignment of error because of the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The overruling of the motion to strike out parts of the verdict of the jury cannot be assigned as error in this court, but must be assigned as a reason for a new trial, and is presented to this court for review under the assignment of error because of the overruling the motion for a new trial. We must therefore disregard the second, third, and fifth errors assigned, but this can make no difference as to our conclusion in the case, for the questions to which these assignments of error relate are properly presented in the motion for a new trial.
The negligence which is charged in the complaint is that on the 17th day of November, 1883, there was a large accumulation of dry grass, weeds, and other combustible matter on the defendant's right of way to the east of the road-bed, and adjacent to and adjoining the tract of land on which the appellees' hay was situated; that the appellant had for a long time theretofore been negligently and carelessly suffering such dry grass, weeds, and other combustible matter to accumulate, and was at the time negligently suffering and permitting such accumulation to remain, and while the same was so remaining, and on the day stated above, the appellant carelessly and negligently ran a locomotive engine adjacent to and within 25 feet of such accumulation, which engine was then and there so negligently, carelessly, and insufficiently constructed and equipped, and then and there so carelessly and negligently managed and operated, by the appellant that it emitted and threw out large coals of fire, which alighted upon and set fire to said accumulation of combustible matter, and the fire so set and started did, through the negligence and carelessness of the appellant, escape and communicate with and set fire to the grass and stubble on the tract of land on which appellees' said hay was situated, and from thence, through the negligence and carelessness of the appellant, it escaped and communicated with and set fire to the grass and stubble on the tract of land on which the appellees' hay was situated, and from thence, through the negligence of the appellant, spread and ran along the ground, communicated with and set fire to the hay of the appellees, which was then and there and thereby wholly consumed and destroyed. Then follows a general averment that the appellees were not guilty of negligence contributing to the injury.
We do not care to spend any time upon the complaint. It is an exceedingly well-prepared pleading, evidently having been prepared with much care and consideration, and states a good and sufficient cause of action. Railroad Co. v. Hixon, 79 Ind. 111; Railroad Co. v. Krinning, 87 Ind. 351; Railroad Co. v. Hanmann, Id. 422. The court committed no error in overruling the motion for a venire de novo. The verdict was not defective or uncertain, but is clear and explicit as to the facts found by the jury. If it does not cover the issues in the case, or so far cover them as to entitle the appellees to a judgment, the question is not presented by a motion for a venire de novo, but must be presented as a reason in the motion for a new trial, or by a motion for a judgment upon the verdict. The question is properly presented in both ways. Bartley v. Phillips, 114 Ind. 189, 16 N. E. Rep. 508; Johnson v. Culver, 19 N. E. Rep. 129; Railroad Co. v. Bush, 101 Ind. 582;Vinton v. Baldwin, 95 Ind. 433;Lafayette v. Allen, 81 Ind. 166;Trittipo v. Morgan, 99 Ind. 269;Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434. The special verdict returned by the jury is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cochran v. Thomas
... ... Graham v. State, 66 Ind. 386; ... Wilson v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 71; Railroad v ... Hart, 119 Ind. 273; Railroad v. Buck, 116 Ind ... 566; Bank v. Bolen, 121 Ind. 301. Second. Under ... ...
-
Poole v. Griffith
... ... & Ginners' Cotton Oil Co., 203 Ala. 601, 84 So. 845, ... 38 Cyc. p. 121, § 3; Louisville, N.A. & C.R. Co. v ... Hart, 119 Ind. 273, 21 N.E. 753, 4 L.R.A. 549, 555 ... In his ... ...
-
Chicago & E.R. Co. v. Bailey
...7 Ind. App. 155, 34 N. E. 587;Railway Co. v. Jones, 86 Ind. 496;Railway Co. v. Overman, 110 Ind. 538, 10 N. E. 575;Railway Co. v. Hart, 119 Ind. 273, 21 N. E. 753. Thus it was stated in the case of Railroad Co. v. Clark, supra: “If appellant set fire to the dry grass and other combustible m......
-
Chicago and Erie Railroad Company v. Bailey
... ... 496; Indiana, etc., R. W. Co ... v. Overman, 110 Ind. 538, 10 N.E. 575; ... Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Hart, 119 ... Ind. 273, 21 N.E. 753 ... Thus, ... it was ... ...