Hintz v. Wagner
| Citation | 140 N.W. 729,25 N.D. 110 |
| Parties | HINTZ v. WAGNER |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1913 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
On petition for rehearing April 9, 1913.
Appeal from a judgment and order of the District Court of Wells County; Burke, and Coffey, JJ.
Reversed.
Order and judgment of the District Court reversed and a new trial granted.
John O Hanchett, for appellant.
If the plaintiff's minor daughters had worked out and earned wages, such wages would have belonged, not to her, but to Carl Hintz, their father, and are therefore not a proper element of damages in this case. Rev. Codes 1905, § 4092; Am. Dig. Century ed. cols. 2471, 2480, §§ 4466, 4475; Hanson v. Boyd, 161 U.S. 397, 40 L.Ed 746, 16 S.Ct. 571; Miller v. Keokuk & D. M. R. Co. 63 Iowa 680, 16 N.W. 567; Mackey v. Olssen, 12 Ore 429, 8 P. 357; Hazard Powder Co. v. Volger, 7 C. C. A. 130 12 U.S. App. 665, 58 F. 152.
The plaintiff was permitted on her direct examination, over objection, to testify that her condition at the time of the trial was the result of the assault and battery upon her, by defendant. Such was error, since it was a mere opinion or conclusion, and, if proper at all, was a matter for expert testimony, or a question for the jury. Kline v. Kansas City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 50 Iowa 659; People v Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 24 N.W. 843; Yost v. Conroy, 92 Ind. 471, 47 Am. Rep. 156; Smith v. Northen P. R. Co. 3 N.D. 561, 58 N.W. 345.
A physician who has made an examination of a patient for treatment at the time, or within a short time after the injury, may testify as to a diagnosis or opinion based on such examination. But statements of past suffering or symptoms are excluded. 1 Greenl. Ev. 16th ed. p. 255; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Frazier, 27 Kan. 463.
A physician will not be permitted to give his opinion based partly upon his examination, and, what the party told him of the past history of the case. Kreuziger v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 73 Wis. 158, 40 N.W. 657; Rowell v. Lowell, 11 Gray, 420.
A physician cannot testify or give his opinion as an expert, as to whether the plaintiff was a strong woman before the injury. Such evidence is wholly incompetent. Moore v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 65 Iowa 505, 54 Am. Rep. 26, 22 N.W. 650; People v. Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 24 N.W. 843; Carter v. Boehm, 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 286, see note; Ellingwood v. Bragg, 52 N.H. 488.
Upon subjects of general knowledge, with which juries are presumed to be familiar, witnesses must testify as to facts alone, and not as experts. Jones v. Tucker, 41 N.H. 547; Cole v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 95 Mich. 77, 54 N.W. 638; Hamer v. First Nat. Bank, 9 Utah 215, 33 P. 941; Carpenter v. Calvert, 83 Ill. 70.
Bessessen & Berry, for respondent.
It has been repeatedly held that objections to evidence not made in the court below cannot be urged on appeal. Decen. Dig. & Key Number Series, Appeal & Error, § 181.
Findings of fact by the trial court are conclusive on appeal. Decen. Dig. Appeal & Error, 1008; Warren v. Nix, 97 Ark. 374, 135 S.W. 896; Bayle v. Morris, Tex. Civ. App. , 134 S.W. 767.
If there is any legal evidence touching the issues decided, the findings of the trial court will not be disturbed. See Hardison v. Davis, 131 Cal. 635, 63 P. 1005; Yore v. Seitz, Cal. , 57 P. 886; Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Barrett, 172 Ill. 610, 50 N.E. 325; Spencer v. Berns, 114 Iowa 126, 86 N.W. 209; Martin v. Walker, 84 Minn. 8, 86 N.W. 467; Inge v. McCreery, 60 A.D. 557, 69 N.Y.S. 1052; Deegan v. Kilpatrick, 54 A.D. 371, 66 N.Y.S. 628; Neely v. Grayson County Nat. Bank, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 513, 61 S.W. 559; Abeel v. Tasker, Tex. Civ. App. , 47 S.W. 738.
If findings are supported by competent evidence, they will not be disturbed. Spitler v. Kaeding, 133 Cal. 500, 65 P. 1040; Herd v. Tuohy, 133 Cal. 55, 65 P. 139; Sonoma County v. Hall, 129 Cal. 659, 62 P. 213; Baird v. New York, 96 N.Y. 567; Kornder v. Kings County Elev. R. Co. 61 A.D. 439, 70 N.Y.S. 708; Jena v. Third Ave. R. Co. 50 A.D. 424, 64 N.Y.S. 88; Cauhape v. Security Sav. Bank, 118 Cal. 82, 50 P. 310; Kelly v. Brown, Cal. , 8 P. 38; De Celis v. Porter, 65 Cal. 3, 2 P. 257, 3 P. 120; Hoffeld v. Buffalo, 130 N.Y. 387, 29 N.E. 747; Deuterman v. Gainsborg, 9 A.D. 151, 41 N.Y.S. 185; The City of New York (Alexandre v. Machan) 147 U.S. 72, 37 L.Ed. 84, 13 S.Ct. 211; Jeffries v. Mutual L. Ins. Co. 110 U.S. 305, 28 L.Ed. 156, 4 S.Ct. 8; Hafelfinger v. Perry, Colo. , 121 P. 1021; State ex rel. Oolitic Stone Co. v. Central States Bridge Co. 49 Ind.App. 544, 97 N.E. 803; Benbow v. The James John, 61 Ore. 153, 121 P. 899; Rauchwanger v. Katzin, 82 N.J.L. 339, 82 A. 510; Hillman v. Donaldson, 67 Wash. 412, 121 P. 866; Hubbard v. Ferry, 141 Wis. 17, 135 Am. St. Rep. 27, 123 N.W. 142.
On evidence fairly justifying either of two inferences, the decision of the trial court must control. Kola Lumber Co. v. Stoughton Wagon Co. 143 Wis. 329, 127 N.W. 974; West Virginia Northern R. Co. v. United States, 67 C. C. A. 220, 134 F. 198; Dooley v. Pease, 180 U.S. 126, 45 L.Ed. 457, 21 S.Ct. 329, 12 Am. Crim. Rep. 408; McLeod v. Hunter, 49 A.D. 131, 63 N.Y.S. 153; Holmvig v. Dakota County, 90 Neb. 576, 134 N.W. 166; Brogna v. Brogna, 67 Wash. 687, 122 P. 1; Schweikert v. John R. Davis Lumber Co. 147 Wis. 242, 133 N.W. 136; Howe v. Stratton, 107 Ill.App. 281.
The burden is on the defendant to show that the greater weight of the evidence is against the findings objected to. Lee v. Dwyer, 20 S.D. 464, 107 N.W. 674.
A married woman has such an interest in her working capacity as will enable her to recover for its impairment. See Powell v. Augusta & S. R. Co. 77 Ga. 192, 3 S.E. 757; Hamilton v. Great Falls Street R. Co. 17 Mont. 334, 42 P. 860, 43 P. 713; Harmon v. Old Colony R. Co. 165 Mass. 100, 30 L.R.A. 658, 52 Am. St. Rep. 499, 42 N.E. 505; Colorado Springs & I. R. Co. v. Nichols, 41 Colo. 272, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 215, 92 P. 691; Elijah v. Cowling, 49 Ind.App. 515, 97 N.E. 551; Wrightsville & T. R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga.App. 371, 71 S.E. 691; Metropolitan Street R. Co. v. Johnson, 90 Ga. 500, 16 S.E. 49. See Lehman v. Amsterdam Coffee Co. 146 Wis. 213, 131 N.W. 362; Skow v. Green Bay & W. R. Co. 141 Wis. 21, 123 N.W. 138; Baxter v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 104 Wis. 307, 80 N.W. 644; American Mfg. Co. v. Bigelow, 110 C. C. A. 77, 188 F. 34; Smith v. Hoctor, 107 N.Y.S. 33; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Batsel, 100 Ark. 526, 140 S.W. 726.
It has been held that an appeal may be withdrawn, after part of the damages found by the jury is permitted by the plaintiff, and that the defendant thereafter proceeds at his own risk, as to costs. Theavenought v. Hardeman, 4 Yerg. 565.
Costs can only be awarded when expressly authorized. Casseday v. Robertson, 19 N.D. 574, 125 N.W. 1045; Whitney v. Akin, 19 N.D. 638, 125 N.W. 470; Engholm v. Ekrem, 18 N.D. 185, 119 N.W. 35; Elfring v. New Birdsall Co. 17 S.D. 350, 96 N.W. 703; Bathgate v. Irvine, 126 Cal. 135, 77 Am. St. Rep. 158, 58 P. 442; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. 1 Ohio C. D. 60; Summerhill v. Darrow, 94 Tex. 71, 57 S.W. 942; See also Andresen v. Upham Mfg. Co. 120 Wis. 561, 98 N.W. 518; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Davis, Tex. Civ. App. , 66 S.W. 598; Freeman v. Fuller, Tex. Civ. App. , 127 S.W. 1194; Ami Co. v. Tide Lumber Co. 51 Wash. 171, 98 P. 380; McKeown v. Dyniewicz, 83 Ill.App. 509; Clark v. McDowell, 58 Neb. 593, 79 N.W. 158; Toledo, St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Stevenson, 122 Ill.App. 654.
A party cannot object to evidence of a fact when he permits the same fact to be testified to without objection. Bailey v Walton, 24 S.D. 119, 123 N.W. 701; Fowler v. Iowa Land Co. 18 S.D. 131, 99 N.W. 1095; Peters v. Kiriakedes, 27 S.D. 371, 131 N.W. 316; Robinson v. Omaha, 84 Neb. 642, 121 N.W. 969; Olmstead v. Red Cloud, 86 Neb. 528, 125 N.W. 1101; Beard v. First Nat. Bank, 41 Minn. 153, 43 N.W. 7; Spoonick v. Backus-Brooks Co. 89 Minn. 354, 94 N.W. 1079; Ashley v. Sioux City, Iowa , 93 N.W. 303; Graham v. Mattoon City R. Co. 234 Ill. 483, 84 N.E. 1070, 14 Ann. Cas. 853; Hunt v. Dubuque, 96 Iowa 314, 65 N.W. 319; Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co. v. Kendall, 178 Mass. 232, 51 L.R.A. 781, 86 Am. St. Rep. 478, 59 N.E. 657, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 496; People v. Chacon, 102 N.Y. 669, 6 N.E. 303; Butts County v. Hixon, 135 Ga. 26, 68 S.E. 786; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Huey, Tex. Civ. App. , 130 S.W. 1017; Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 18 N.D. 462, 123 N.W. 281; Doyle v. Eschen, 5 Cal.App. 55, 89 P. 836; Daughtry v. Savannah & S. R. Co. 1 Ga.App. 393, 58 S.E. 230; Erickson v. Sophy, 10 S.D. 71, 71 N.W. 758; Indianapolis Street R. Co. v. Taylor, 39 Ind.App. 592, 80 N.E. 436; Knuckey v. Butte Electric R. Co. 45 Mont. 106, 122 P. 280; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Duke, 112 C. C. A. 564, 192 F. 306; Neff v. Williamson, 154 Ala. 329, 46 So. 238; Hindle v. Healy, 204 Mass. 48, 90 N.E. 511; Pace v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 166 Ala. 519, 52 So. 52; Poppenhusen v. Poppenhusen, 149 A.D. 307, 133 N.Y.S. 887; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Snell, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 413, 106 S.W. 170; Iowa Homestead Co. v. Duncombe, 51 Iowa 525, 1 N.W. 725; Edwards v. White, Tex. Civ. App. , 120 S.W. 914; Vann v. Denson, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 220, 120 S.W. 1020; New York P. & N. R. Co. v. Wilson, 109 Va. 754, 64 S.E. 1060; Los Angeles County v. Winans, 13 Cal.App. 257, 109 P. 650; Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Haralson, 133 Ga. 231, 65 S.E. 437, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 597; Mutual F. Ins. Co. v. Ritter, 113 Md. 163, 77 A. 388; Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. Gilbert, Tex. Civ. App. , 130 S.W. 1037; Small v. Rush, Tex. Civ. App. , 132 S.W. 874; Buswell v. O. W. Kerr Co. 112 Minn. 388, 128 N.W. 459, 21 Ann. Cas. 837; Wilder v. Great Western Cereal Co. 134 Iowa 451, 109 N.W. 789; Raymond v. Glover, 122 Cal. 471, 55 P. 398; Medearis v. Anchor Mut. F. Ins. Co. 104 Iowa 88, 65 Am. St. Rep. 428, 73...
To continue reading
Request your trial