Baird v. Chi., R.I. & P.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1883 |
| Citation | 16 N.W. 207,61 Iowa 359 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | BAIRD v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. |
Supplemental opinion.
In a petition for rehearing it is contended by the defendant that the opinion is inconsistent with that filed upon a former appeal, and reported in 55 Iowa, 125; [S. C. 7 N. W. REP. 460.] The defendant quotes from that opinion the following words: The defendant asks how the court can now hold that the court below “erred in rendering judgment for the defendant upon the theory that the verdict did not show contributory negligence.” The defendant's difficulty arises from a misunderstanding of the former opinion. We did not say in that opinion that the special findings under the law showed contributory negligence, but merely that they showed it under the instruction. Mr. Justice DAY, who wrote the opinion, took pains to guard it against misconstruction. He used these words: “In what we have said we intimate no opinion as to the correctness of the instruction which we have been considering.” By this he virtually said we intimate no opinion as to whether what the court below said would constitute contributory negligence. We are now charged with making a ruling upon that hearing which we expressly avoided. It is true, Mr. Justice DAY said: *208“The general verdict is, therefore, inconsistent with the special findings and the foregoing instruction.” But it is plain to be seen that he did not mean that the general verdict was inconsistent with each, separately and independently considered, but taken together.
The defendant insists that we do not, even now, say that the instruction is erroneous. We were not called upon to rule directly upon the correctness of the instruction, but only indirectly. We said in substance that the special findings did not, necessarily, show contributory negligence. The court below said in substance that such findings, if made, would necessarily show contributory negligence. It results that, in our opinion, the instruction was erroneous.
It only remains to be considered as to whether the plaintiff was bound by it, notwithstanding it was erroneous. The defendant insists that he was. Its position is that the plaintiff should have excepted and appealed. We have the doctrine announced that a successful party in a jury trial is concluded by an erroneous instruction, not excepted to by him and not appealed from, and must not only lose his verdict and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sonnesyn v. Akin
... ... of passion or prejudice. 14 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 886; Hayne on New ... Trials, 563, section 3; Mechelke et al. v ... [104 N.W. 1031] ... bind itself." Baird v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., ... 61 Iowa 359, 16 N.W. 207. That the ... ...
-
Com. v. James
...805 (1978); Jamison v. U.S., 373 A.2d 594 (D.C.App.) (1977); Hess v. State, 146 Ga.App. 874, 247 S.E.2d 546 (1978); Baird v. Chicago, 61 Iowa 359, 16 N.W. 207 (1883); State v. Talmage, 104 Idaho 249, 658 P.2d 920 (1983); Papageorgiou v. G.W. Woolworth Co., 66 Ill.App.3d 873, 23 Ill.Dec. 319......
-
Helton Const. Co., Inc. v. Thrift
...Lakemoor v. First Bank of Oak Park, 136 Ill.App.3d 35, 90 Ill.Dec. 731, 734, 482 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (1985); Baird v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 61 Iowa 359, 16 N.W. 207, 208 (1883); Hendrix v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 203 Kan. 140, 453 P.2d 486, 496 (1969); McCafferty v. Goddard, 152 Me. 415, ......
-
New York, C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Hamlin
...that appellee had no knowledge of. This very distinction was suggested in Baird v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 61 Iowa, 359, 361, 13 N. W. 731, 16 N. W. 207, where the court said that the jury's finding must mean that the making of the coupling by the plaintiff “was more dangerous than it would ......