Arnold v. The C. Hoffman & Son Milling Company
| Decision Date | 09 December 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,257 |
| Citation | 86 Kan. 12,119 P. 373 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | L. D. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. THE C. HOFFMAN & SON MILLING COMPANY et al., Appellees |
Decided July, 1911.
Appeal from Dickinson district court.
Judgment reversed.
Edward C. Little, for the appellant.
M. A Low, Paul E. Walker, C. S. Crawford, and G. W. Hurd, for the appellees.
This was an action by Arnold to recover damages resulting from the overflow of his land and the destruction of his crops alleged to have been caused by the joint action and wrong of the defendants.
After some preliminary motions and rulings Arnold filed an amended petition alleging that he owned land on the Smoky Hill river that the defendants had illegally obstructed the flow of the water and threw it back on his farm; that the railway company, in building a bridge below his farm, constructed an embankment and placed about one hundred carloads of stone in the river, which operated to dam the river, and that the other defendants built a dam near the same place at a height not allowed by law, thus obstructing the flow of the river and creating a nuisance. It is alleged that on a certain date these acts of the different parties and these obstructions, operating jointly and contemporaneously, caused the river to overflow its banks and to destroy plaintiff's crops. It is also alleged that the conduct of the defendants in this respect was wanton and negligent and showed a willful indifference to the rights of the plaintiff, for which punitive damages were asked.
The court, on motion of defendants, ruled that the allegations in regard to willful and wanton negligence and punitive damages should be stricken out, and that plaintiff be required to separately state his cause of action against the railway company and his cause of action against the remaining defendants. The plaintiff refused to comply with the order but elected to stand upon his amended petition, whereupon the court dismissed the action.
The ruling requiring plaintiff to separately state and number the causes of action was not warranted and can not be affirmed. If two or more parties, acting jointly, wrong and injure another they are jointly and severally liable for the consequences, and the injured party may at his option sue one or all of those contributing to the injury. (Westbrook v. Mize, 35 Kan. 299, 10 P. 881; Land Co. v Brady, 53 Kan. 420, 36 P. 728; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v. Herington Cattle Co.
...Similar holdings may be found in Luengene v. Consumers' Light, Heat & Power Co., 86 Kan. 866, 122 P. 1032; Arnold v. C. Hoffman & Son Milling Co., 86 Kan. 12, 119 P. 373; and Kansas City v. Slangstrom, 53 Kan. 431, 36 P. We believe what has been said effectively disposes of Swift's contenti......
-
Mosby v. Manhattan Oil Co.
...obstruction is immaterial, when it appears that the wrongdoing was concurrent and combined in producing the injury." Arnold v. Milling Co., 86 Kan. 12, 119 P. 373, 374. Action was brought by Arnold against the milling company, railway company, et al., for damages caused by defendants obstru......
-
Landers v. East Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co.
...Kanola Corp. v. Palmer, 167 Okl. 430, 30 P.2d 189; Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Laskey, 173 Okl. 48, 46 P.2d 484; Arnold v. C. Hoffman & Son Milling Co., 86 Kan. 12, 119 P. 373; McDaniel v. City of Cherryvale, 91 Kan. 40, 136 P. 899, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 388; Mosby v. Manhatten Oil Co., 8 Cir., 52 F......
-
Larson Brothers Wholesale Grocery Company v. The City of Kansas City
... ... 53 Kan. 431, 36 P. 706; Railway Co. v. Merrill, 61 ... Kan. 671, 678, 60 P. 819; Arnold v. Milling Co., 86 ... Kan. 12, 119 P. 373; Luengene v. Power Co., 86 Kan ... 866, 122 P. 1032; ... ...