Grigsby v. Jenkins, 41055
| Decision Date | 08 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 41055,41055 |
| Citation | 331 P.2d 284,183 Kan. 594 |
| Parties | Charles GRIGSBY, Sr., Appellant, v. Charlie JENKINS and Cornelius Jenkins, Appellees. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A motion for judgment non obstante veredicto raises questions of law and is no substitute for a motion for a new trial in testing the sufficiency of evidence. (G.S.1949, 60-2918.)
2. A general verdict in favor of a party to an action imports a finding in his favor upon all issues in the case.
3. When dissatisfied with a verdict, it is the duty of the trial court to grant a new trial.
4. A trial court may not upon consideration of the evidence substitute its judgment for that of the jury, set aside the general verdict and render judgment in favor of the other party.
B. V. Hampton, Pratt, argued the cause, and Bill Murray, Pratt, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Paul R. Wunsch, Kingman, argued the cause, and Chas. H. Stewart, Kingman, was with him on the briefs for appellees.
Plaintiff-appellant Charles Grigsby, Sr., brought this action to recover from defendant-appellee Charlie Jenkins and Cornelius Jenkins on an oral contract for the harvesting of 400 acres of wheat. During the introduction of plaintiff's testimony, the case was dimissed at to Cornelius Jenkins and he was no longer a party to the action.
The petition alleged and evidence established that defendant Charlie Jenkins, in January, 1953, orally requested plaintiff to render services and furnish labor, machinery and equipment in the cutting and harvesting of 400 acres of growing wheat of which defendant was the joint owner or in which he had a beneficial interest; further, that plaintiff was to be paid the agreed sum of $1,200 or three dollars an acre, and that plaintiff fully performed the oral agreement by cutting and harvesting the wheat in June 1953, with full knowledge of defendant.
The allegations and evidence further established that at the completion of the harvest defendant asked plaintiff if he had to have the money at that time. Plaintiff answered he did not but could use it. Defendant said he was 'pretty hard up' and it would be quite an accommodation if plaintiff could 'do without it awhile.' Plaintiff said he had to have the money in January as he had $1,200 in taxes to pay and would need it then. Defendant offered to give plaintiff a note for the amount due, whereupon plaintiff told defendant his word was good for $1,200 for six months and he would not charge him any interest. Defendant denied the contract and indebtedness, although he did not deny his beneficial interest in the grain.
Upon this and other evidence the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a general verdict for $1,200 in favor of the plaintiff. It also found in answer to the only special question submitted by the court that defendant Charlie had the authority to enter into the contract for the cutting of the 400 acres of wheat.
The defendant moved to have the answer to the special question and the general verdict set aside and to have judgment rendered in his favor for the reason that neither the answer to the special question nor the general verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant also filed a motion for a new trial but no ruling has been made thereon.
The trial court set aside the answer to the special question, which concerned only defendant Charlie's authority to enter into the contract with plaintiff for his son Cornelius as co-owner of the wheat. Cornelius being no longer in the case, the question of agency was not germane to the issue of whether the defendant Charlie had made a contract with plaintiff. The defendant Charlie Jenkins was in no position to deny his liability if plaintiff, acting in reliance on the oral agreement of January, 1953, conferred a benefit on defendant.
The trial court took under consideration defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. It ruled later in substance that the evidence was insufficient to support the general verdict and that it could not in good conscience approve the verdict for the plaintiff for the reason that the preponderance or greater weight of evidence was on the side of defendant. The court set aside the general verdict in favor of plaintiff and rendered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in weighing the evidence and entering judgment for defendant on a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff and to support the general verdict required a re-examination of the facts shown by the evidence. Under our decisions such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogilvie v. Mangels
...of our cases in which a disputed question of fact was considered under such a motion. Attention is directed to the cases of Grigsby v. Jenkins, Kan., 331 P.2d 284, where Mr. Justice Wertz, speaking for the court, discussed a similar question, and Lord v. Hercules Powder Co., 161 Kan. 268, 1......
-
Security Insurance Co. of New Haven v. Johnson
...Powder Co., 161 Kan. 268, 167 P.2d 299; Phillips v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 157 Kan. 581, 142 P.2d 704; Grigsby v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 594, 331 P.2d 284. It must be recognized, however, that certain decisions relied upon by appellees come nearer to the mark and that one or two of t......
-
Howell v. Ablah
...relating to fraud and misrepresentation involved in the case against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiffs (Grigsby v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 594, 331 P.2d 284). Conceding the evidence as to fraud and misrepresentation was conflicting the record discloses ample substantial competent evide......
-
Manhattan Bible College v. Stritesky
...raises questions of law and is no substitute for a motion for a new trial in testing the sufficiency of evidence. (Grigsby v. Jenkins, 183 Kan. 594, 596, 331, P.2d 284.) In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the theory upon which the instant case was tried and submitted to the ......