Inabinett v. Saint Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 11 March 1905 |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 293,74 Ark. 427 |
| Parties | INABINETT v. SAINT LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Nevada Circuit Court JOEL D. CONWAY, Judge.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
L. A Byrne, for appellant.
B. S Johnson, for appellant.
The bill of exceptions presents no fact for consideration of this court. 71 Ark. 83; 37 Ark. 117, 471; 36 Ark. 495; 48 Ark. 45 60; 57 Ark. 459.
This action was brought by Inabinett against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries to him alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in allowing steam to escape from the steam cocks of its engines while plaintiff was approaching, in his buggy, a public crossing in the city of Texarkana.
The defendant denied all the material allegations in plaintiff's complaint, and alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one dollar, and the court rendered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff moved for a new trial on the following grounds: "(1.) because the verdict is contrary to the law; (2.) because the verdict is contrary to the evidence; (3.) because the amount of damages assessed by the jury is too small and wholly inadequate to compensate the plaintiff for the injury and pecuniary loss and damages sustained by him; (4.) because the verdict of the jury was rendered under a disregard of the plaintiff's right, and is arbitrary and unwarranted under the law."
The court overruled the motion, and he appealed. This is the second appeal in this case to this court. The evidence adduced in the second trial is not set out in the bill of exceptions in this case; only the substance is given. It was set out in the following manner:
"J. A. Inabinett testified in his own behalf, which is, in substance, the same as his evidence set out in full in the bill of exceptions; made a part of the record of the first appeal, and which tended to show that his horse became frightened at the blowing of a whistle," etc. * * * "Reference is made to his former evidence on said appeal, and made a part of this bill of exceptions, same as if copied in full." "Except, however, the plaintiff further testified that since the first trial he had made a trip to Nashville, Tenn., to take a course of electrical treatment for his injuries, which cost him $ 300, and had made another trip to Bonham, Texas, at a further cost of $ 300, which improved his condition, and his general health was better than at the former trial, although he had not recovered from his injuries."
J. E. Young, also orally examined on this trial, is referred to as follows:
etc.
J. R. Inabinett is also referred to as having "testified substantially the same as on the former trial, whose evidence is copied in full in the bill of exceptions on the first appeal, is referred to and taken as his evidence in full for the purpose of this appeal, and which tended to show the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries, and the extent and value of plaintiff's practice as a physician."
J. A. Matthews, a witness for plaintiff, stated as follows:
"J. A. Matthews, whose testimony was not had in the first trial, but produced in this trial, and whose evidence tended to corroborate the evidence of the plaintiff, and tended to prove that the plaintiff's horse became frightened at the escape of steam of an engine near the public crossing aforesaid, which caused the horse to take fright and throw the plaintiff from his buggy."
H. R Webster is referred to as having testified "substantially as he did on the former trial, except that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cranford v. State
...two miles from Bauxite. 99 Ark. 134; 91 Id. 492. 5. Only the substance of the testimony is set out, and its sufficiency will be presumed. 74 Ark. 427; 57 459; 105 Id. 608-614. Where all the evidence is not set out in the bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that the evidence is sufficien......
-
Wright v. Midland Valley Railroad Co.
...on its face shows that it does not contain all the evidence introduced at the trial. 94 Ark. 115; 72 Ark. 183; 75 Ark. 76; 35 Ark. 412; 74 Ark. 427; 83 Ark. 3. There is no error in the instructions. Appellee's contention was that the cars were turned over to appellants properly iced; that t......
-
Tharpe v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... 530 THARPE v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY Supreme Court of ArkansasApril 18, 1910 ... 72; 3 Crawford's Digest, p. 34; ... Inabinett v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., ... 74 Ark ... ...
-
French v. Vanatta
...not brought into the transcript, the presumption is in favor of the judgment. 63 Ark. 513; 67 Ark. 464; 70 Ark. 127; 72 Ark. 185; Id. 21; 74 Ark. 427; 77 Ark. 2. The administrator and widow, having raised no issue in the lower court as to its action in ordering the sale, report and approval......