Baird v. Vaughn

CourtTennessee Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSnodgrass
Citation15 S.W. 734
PartiesBAIRD <I>et ux.</I> v. VAUGHN <I>et al.</I>
Decision Date13 December 1890

Page 734

15 S.W. 734
BAIRD et ux.
v.
VAUGHN et al.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
December 13, 1890.

Appeal in error from circuit court, Davidson county; WILLIAM K. McALESTER, Jr., Judge.

Pitts & Meeks, for plaintiffs in error. Tully Brown, W. D. Covington, and Baxter Smith, for defendants in error.

SNODGRASS, J.


This suit was brought to recover damages for injuries inflicted upon Mrs. Baird by a bull alleged to belong to defendants Vaughn & Wade. There was a trial before a jury. Verdict and judgment in favor of defendants. Appeal and assignment of errors by plaintiffs. The bull attacked and badly injured Mrs. Baird on the street in Nashville, July 7, 1888. It had escaped on the day before, while being driven, with three others, through the city. They were in charge of two negroes, and driven without being secured in any way. The one which inflicted the injury complained of broke away from the others, and, being abandoned by those in charge as uncontrollable, committed various depredations the evening before. Among other questions in the controversy was that of ownership, and in whose charge the animal was when he escaped. The defendant Vaughn testified that he was not the owner. Plaintiff offered to prove what the negroes in charge said while driving the animals about where they were driving them from and where to. This was objected to by defendants, and the court sustained the objection. This plaintiff assigned as error. We hold it is so, and that witness must be permitted to answer. The next assignment was upon refusal of the judge to charge as requested by plaintiffs as follows: "If the jury believes from the evidence that plaintiff J. P. Baird, before his suit was commenced, approached the defendant Joseph Vaughn, in order to ascertain from him who was the owner of the bull which inflicted the injury complained of, with the view of bringing suit for such injury, and that defendant Vaughn, with knowledge of plaintiff's purpose in making this inquiry of him, and with intent that his answer should influence the action of plaintiff, told plaintiff that he, Vaughn, was the owner of said bull, and had placed said bull and others in charge of defendant H. Wade, his agent, to sell or dispose of, and that plaintiff, acting upon this statement, brought suit against said defendants, Vaughn & Wade, under the belief created by the statement of said Vaughn that he was the owner of said bull, and was thereby misled as to the real owner of the bull,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...of the Law of Torts, par. 290; Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506; Barnum v. Terpenning, 75 Mass. 557, 42 N.W. 967; Baird v. Vaughn, 15 S.W. 734; Hudson v. Roberts, 6 Exch. 697; 4 Thompson, Negligence, pars. 4060, 4061, 4041, 4117; Clark v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., 179 Mo. 66, ......
  • Myers v. Byars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 6, 1893
    ...have the money. Bigelow, Estop. 550; Meister v. Birney, 24 Mich. 435; Robb v. Shephard, 50 Mich. 189, 15 N.W. 76; Baird v. Vaughn, (Tenn.) 15 S.W. 734. The agreement referred to-that of February 13, 1890-contemplated and provided for a contest in the courts of Jefferson county to determine ......
2 cases
  • Alexander v. Crochett, No. 19322.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 30, 1939
    ...of the Law of Torts, par. 290; Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506; Barnum v. Terpenning, 75 Mass. 557, 42 N.W. 967; Baird v. Vaughn, 15 S.W. 734; Hudson v. Roberts, 6 Exch. 697; 4 Thompson, Negligence, pars. 4060, 4061, 4041, 4117; Clark v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., 179 Mo. 66, ......
  • Myers v. Byars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 6, 1893
    ...have the money. Bigelow, Estop. 550; Meister v. Birney, 24 Mich. 435; Robb v. Shephard, 50 Mich. 189, 15 N.W. 76; Baird v. Vaughn, (Tenn.) 15 S.W. 734. The agreement referred to-that of February 13, 1890-contemplated and provided for a contest in the courts of Jefferson county to determine ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT