Anderson v. Pierce
Decision Date | 06 April 1901 |
Docket Number | 11,889 |
Citation | 62 Kan. 756,64 P. 633 |
Parties | WALTER F. ANDERSON, a Minor, etc., v. W. P. PIERCE et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1901.
Error from Saline district court; R. F. THOMPSON, judge.
STATEMENT.
THIS action was brought by W. F. Anderson, a minor, by his next friend, to recover damages for personal injury, from W. F and T. A. Pierce and the city of Salina. The injury sustained was occasioned by the falling of a vault door which had been removed from a building in the process of improvement and placed on edge on the sidewalk in the defendant city.
The door was removed by W. F. Pierce from a building situate upon a lot in the defendant city, to which defendant T. A. Pierce held a deed absolute in form, and of which building he was in possession. The city had notice of the fact of the placing of the door in the position it occupied upon the sidewalk. The deed held by T. A. Pierce was in fact, as between the parties thereto, a mortgage.
At the trial the jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiff and also answers to certain interrogatories, which in so far as they are material to a determination this case were as follows:
The following special findings were made at the request of defendant T. A. Pierce:
Defendants filed separate motions for judgment in their favor on the answers given by the jury to these special interrogatories, and also filed separate motions for a new trial, but the latter were not considered by the court. The trial court granted the motions for judgment on the findings, set aside the general verdict, and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. To reverse this judgment the present proceeding in error is brought by the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed.
R. A. Lovitt, and David Ritchie, for plaintiff in error.
Bond & Osborn, John D. Milliken, Z. C. Millikin, J. O. Wilson, and H. C. Tobey, for defendants in error.
The evidence is not contained in the record. The general verdict of the jury found all the facts essential to a recovery in favor of the plaintiff and entitled the plaintiff to judgment, unless the special findings made are inconsistent with the general verdict and plaintiff's right of recovery. The sole question presented in this case is, Did the trial court err in granting defendants judgment on the special findings? All of the parties insist that these special findings are consistent with one another, counsel for plaintiff in error contending that they are not only consistent with one another but are consistent with the general finding; and counsel for defendants in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Packer v. Fairmont Creamery Co.
... ... with the general verdict (O.S.1935, 60-2918), that rule ... implies that the special findings must be consistent with ... each other. In Anderson v. Pierce, 62 Kan. 756, 64 ... P. 633, it was held: ... "Where ... the general verdict is in plaintiff's favor, and the ... special ... ...
-
Sandstrom v. Smith
...32 Colo. 259, 75 P. 913; Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Dunlevy, 129 Ill. 132, 22 N.E. 15; Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho 271, 48 P. 295; Anderson v. Pierce, 62 Kan. 756, 64 P. 633; Clementson on Special Verdicts, Holden, Holden, Holden & Holden, for Respondents. The controlling, decisive issue was as to......
-
Osburn v. The Atchison
...v. Ritz, 33 Kan. 404, 6 P. 533; Bevens v. Smith, 42 Kan. 250, 21 P. 1064; U. P. Rly. Co. v. Fray, 43 Kan. 750, 23 P. 1039; Anderson v. Pierce, 62 Kan. 756, 64 P. 633; Drinkwater v. Sauble, 46 Kan. 170, 26 P. The special findings upon which the court entered judgment for the defendant are th......
-
The Coffeyville Mining and Gas Company v. Carter
... ... contradictory nor destructive of plaintiff's right of ... recovery, the motion for judgment was properly [65 Kan. 572] ... denied. (Anderson v. Pierce, 62 Kan. 756, 64 P ... The ... final contention made is that the answers returned to special ... questions are so ... ...