Atchison
Decision Date | 09 October 1885 |
Citation | 34 Kan. 132,8 P. 218 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COM- v. CAL. R. GABBERT |
Error from Rice District Court.
ACTION brought by Gabbert against The Railroad Company, to recover $ 500 and an attorney's fee, for killing a jackass belonging to the plaintiff. Trial at the March Term, 1884 and verdict for plaintiff for $ 280.13 damages, and $ 25 attorney's fee. New trial denied, and judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and for costs, taxed at $ 155.75. The defendant company brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Judgment modified.
A. A Hurd, John Reid, and Robert Dunlap, for plaintiff in error George W. McCrary, general counsel.
Wm. J. Fuller, and A. M. Lasley, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought by Cal. R. Gabbert in the district court of Rice county, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, to recover the sum of $ 500 and an attorneys' fee, for the killing of a one-year-old jackass belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, the failure on the part of the defendant to fence its railroad, the straying of the animal from the plaintiff's premises upon the railroad track without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, and the killing of the animal by the railroad company in the operation of its railroad. All proper allegations were set forth in the plaintiff's petition necessary to enable him to recover under the railroad stock law of 1874.
But that is not this case. In the present case, the defendant, in offering to introduce the foregoing evidence and in asking the foregoing instructions, virtually asked the court to say as a matter of law that if the plaintiff permitted his "jack to run upon his farm unattended by anyone, or without having a fence ordinarily sufficient to prevent such jack from passing upon the defendant's track," the plaintiff could not recover. This is not the law. Besides the case already cited, see also in this connection A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Shaft, 33 Kan. 521; Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Bradshaw, 33 id. 533; Prickett v. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co., 33 id. 748.
The plaintiff in error, defendant below, also claims that the court below erred in permitting certain evidence to be introduced tending to show the value in Rice county of jacks in general of the description, kind and age of the plaintiff's, by a witness who had never seen the plaintiff's jack and had no personal knowledge thereof. As we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New York, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Zumbaugh
...the railroad stock law of 1874 for killing stock on its unfenced railroad, it was held interest could not be recovered. Railroad Co. v. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132, 8 Pac. 218. In Iowa the statute provides that the recovery shall be in double the amount of the actual damages, and in that state no ......
-
Kansas City
...Kirkwood, 25 Miss. 95; Reece v. Knott, 3 Utah 451, 24 P. 757; Redfield v. Iron Co., 110 U.S. 174, 28 L.Ed. 109, 3 S.Ct. 570; Railroad Co. v. Gabbert, 34 Kan. 132; Simmons Garrett, McCahon, 82; Association v. Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 36; Wilson v. Means, 25 id. 83. In some states interest on verdic......
- The Latham Mercantile and Commercial Company v. Harrod
- The Atchison v. Ayers