Hickenbottom v. Chi., Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 March 1882
• Citation: 57 Iowa 704,11 N.W. 652
• Parties: HICKENBOTTOM v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RY. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

57 Iowa 704

11 N.W. 652

HICKENBOTTOM

v.CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 23, 1882.

Appeal from Jefferson district court.

Action to recover double the value of a cow which, it is alleged, was killed on the track of defendant's road by an engine and train, by reason of the want of a sufficient fence upon the line of the railroad. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Slagle & McCrackin, for appellant.

Ratcliff & McCoy, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The principal ground upon which a reversal of the judgment is claimed, is that the verdict finds no support in the evidence. This point is urged in a printed argument which elaborately reviews the evidence, and counsel in an oral argument strenuously contended that under the evidence there was no justification for the verdict, and that, notwithstanding the well-known rule prevailing here, a new trial should be granted. We have each carefully examined the whole record. The evidence appears to be fully presented, and our conclusion is that the judgment must be affirmed. It is not to be expected that we will set out and discuss the evidence. The announcement of our conclusion on a question of fact is sufficient. The evidence is of no consequence to the profession, and our views upon it would probably leave counsel for the appellant with minds unchanged, firmly believing that the verdict is a great wrong upon their client,

2. The motion for a new trial was granted in part upon certain alleged newly-discovered evidence. This evidence was merely cumulative, and therefore was not such as entitled the defendant to a new trial. Affirmed.