Hunt v. City of Columbia

• Decision Date: 19 November 1906
• Citation: Hunt v. City of Columbia, 97 S.W. 955, 122 Mo. App. 31 (Mo. App. 1906)
• Parties: HUNT v. CITY OF COLUMBIA.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

97 S.W. 955

122 Mo. App. 31

HUNT v. CITY OF COLUMBIA.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 19, 1906.

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1906.

JURY — COMPETENCY OF JURORS — FORMATION OF OPINION—EVIDENCE AT TRIAL OF OTHER CAUSE.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3785, providing that no person who has formed an opinion concerning any material fact in controversy which may influence his judgment shall be sworn as a juror, in an action against a city by the owner of a lot abutting on an alley for damages resulting from a change of the grade of the alley, where the only issue was the amount of damages, one who had served as juror in an action by the owner of another lot abutting on the alley and damaged from the same change of grade, was incompetent to sit as a juror.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; A. H. Waller, Judge.

Action by Robert F. Hunt against the city of Columbia. From the judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Rothwell, Gillespy & Conley, for appellant. Webster Gordon, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This action is one of three which were brought by different property owners against the defendant city and several individuals for cutting the grade of an alley at the rear of plaintiff's property. Plaintiff dismissed his case as to the individuals, and recovered judgment against the city.

The defendant filed an answer containing a general denial. Afterwards it filed a motion to require plaintiff to make his petition more definite and certain, which was overruled. Afterwards defendant filed its motion to be permitted to answer, or refile its former answer. This motion was overruled. Thereupon plaintiff filed his motion for judgment for want of an answer. This motion was sustained, and a jury called to assess the damages. Several persons were called on the panel who had served as jurors in the other cases. As the point made in this respect is confined to one of these, we will only notice that one. The juror answered on his voir dire that he had sat as a juror in one of the other cases. That he had "formed an opinion as to all of these cases." That he had no opinion as to the amount of damages sustained by this plaintiff; and as to whether he was damaged at all he had an opinion "only as a juror in the other case." On further examination, he stated that he had an opinion "in a general way." But he did not know to what extent this plaintiff was damaged; and that he heard this plaintiff testify in the other cases.

The only ground to support the contention that the juror was qualified is that plaintiff's cause of action stood confessed for want of an answer, and that the only...