Bourlier Cornice & Roofing Co. v. Loemker

• Decision Date: 11 March 1902
• Citation: 67 S.W. 10
• Parties: BOURLIER CORNICE & ROOFING CO. v. LOEMKER. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

67 S.W. 10

BOURLIER CORNICE & ROOFING CO. v. LOEMKER. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 11, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, law and equity division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by H. Loemker against the Bourlier Cornice & Roofing Company to recover rent, and also damages for injury to rented property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

F. T Fox, for appellant.

M. A D. A. & J. G. Sachs, for appellee.

GUFFY C.J.

The appellee instituted this action in the Jefferson circuit court against the appellant, seeking to recover $225 for balance of three months' rent due for certain property rented by the appellant from the appellee, and also $450 for damage to the property rented, and filed a written contract between the parties in regard to the renting and their taking care of the property. The answer may be taken as a traverse of all the averments of the petition, except a balance of $140.90 of the rent due, and a tender of same to plaintiff as pleaded. The averments of the answer were traversed by the reply. A jury trial resulted in a verdict as follows: "We, the jury find for the plaintiff, as rent due him, the sum of $225.00 and interest from the end of September, October, November, 1899. David Davis, Foreman." "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff damages in the sum of $150.00. David Davis, Foreman." The court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against defendant for the sum of $225, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from November 30, 1899, until paid, and the further sum of $150 interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from this date until date, and his costs expended. The grounds relied on for new trial are, in substance: (1) The verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. (2) Judgment is contrary to law. (3) That the court erred in refusing instructions asked by the defendant. (4) That the court erred in giving instructions Nos. 1, 2, 3. (5) The irregularity in the proceedings of the court, and abuse of its discretion by refusing to allow the attorney for the defendant to discuss before the jury the issue as to the rent of November, 1899, as presented by instructions excepted to by defendant. (6) Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery being too large under and according to the verdict due for rent, and being more than and in excess of the amount prayed for in plaintiff's...