Lorang v. Randall

Decision Date23 April 1915
Citation148 P. 468,27 Idaho 259
PartiesVINCENT F. LORANG, Respondent, v. L. R. RANDALL, Appellant
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DAMAGES-PERSONAL INJURIES-VERDICT-SUFFICIENCY OF-NONSUIT-COMPLAINT-AMENDMENT OF-INSTRUCTIONS.

1. Held, that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and that the court did not err in overruling appellant's motion for a nonsuit.

2. Where the court allows an amendment to the complaint and thereafter offers to continue the case at the cost of the plaintiff, and the defendant indicates that he does not desire the case continued, held, that the court did not err in permitting the amendment.

3. Held, that the instructions given by the court fairly cover the case, and were applicable to the evidence.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District for Lewis County. Hon. Edgar C. Steele, Judge.

Action to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs in favor of the respondent.

G. W Tannahill, for Appellant.

From the evidence it appears that Lorang was the aggressor--not only in attempting to ride his horse over Randall, but also in attempting to drive from the corral a heifer which did not belong to him; that he was engaged in an unlawful act or undertaking at the time.

"A party who acts in defiance of law has no just claims to its agency in obtaining redress for the damage he may have sustained in the course of his illegal transactions." (Beach on Contributory Negligence, sec. 47; Cooley on Torts 2d ed., 151; Dover v. Knauer, 84 Ill.App. 184; Wallace v. Cannon, 38 Ga. 199; 95 Am. Dec. 385; Sprague v. Rooney, 104 Mo. 349, 358, 16 S.W. 505, 508.)

No action will lie to cover a demand or a supposed claim for damages if to establish it the plaintiff requires aid from an illegal transaction. (Welch v. Wesson, 6 Gray (Mass.), 505; Gregg v. Wyman, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 322.)

"Force, if not excessive, is justified when employed in necessary defense of the possession of property, either real or personal, against the aggressions of an individual, or of an animal." (38 Cyc. 532.)

F. E. Fogg, for Respondent, cites no authorities.

SULLIVAN, C. J. Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This action was commenced to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant's jerking the respondent's horse, causing the horse to rear and fall upon the respondent. The appellant denied the material allegations of the complaint and filed his cross-complaint, alleging damages by reason of the respondent's riding his horse wilfully and maliciously and without cause against the body of the appellant.

The cause was tried by the court with a jury and a verdict and judgment rendered and given in favor of the respondent, awarding him damages in the sum of $ 250 with costs. A motion for a new trial was denied and the appeal is from the judgment and order denying a new trial.

The appellant assigns several errors involving the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, overruling and denying appellant's motion for a nonsuit, and errors of law occurring at the trial. The principal error involves the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

It is contended by counsel for appellant that the respondent was a trespasser at the time he received the injuries; that he had been ordered by the appellant not to attempt to take the heifer from a certain corral, which was involved in the controversy, for the reason, as claimed by the appellant, that the respondent did not own her, and notwithstanding he was ordered not to take her, he insisted upon riding into the corral and attempting to drive said heifer out, and it is contended that in his attempt to do that he rode his horse on to appellant and in appellant's effort to protect himself the horse was thrown and in that manner the respondent received whatever injuries he sustained.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Powers v. Security Savings & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1923
    ... ... Idaho 787, 100 P. 91; Panhandle Lumber Co. v ... Rancour , 24 Idaho 603, 135 P. 558; Fralick v ... Mercer , 27 Idaho 360, 148 P. 906; Lorang v ... Randall , 27 Idaho 259, 148 P. 468.) ... In ... order for respondent to maintain his judgment, it must be ... held that the ... ...
  • Mole v. Payne
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1924
    ... ... 4, 74 P. 352.) ... The ... court may permit an amendment to the complaint while a motion ... for nonsuit is pending. (Lorang v. Randall, 27 Idaho ... 259, 148 P. 468; McCormick v. Smith, 23 Idaho 487, ... 130 P. 999.) ... George ... H. Smith, H. B. Thompson and ... ...
  • Seamons v. Spackman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1959
    ...is conflicting on the material issues of fact, it is the province of the jury to find on such conflicting evidence. Lorang v. Randall, 27 Idaho 259, 148 P. 468; Shallis v. Fiorito, 41 Idaho 653, 240 P. 932; Cooper v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 45 Idaho 313, 262 P. 873; Alsup v. Saratoga Hote......
  • Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1956
    ...is conflicting on the material issues of fact, it is the province of the jury to find on such conflicting evidence. Lorang v. Randall, 27 Idaho 259, 148 P. 468; Shallis v. Fiorito, 41 Idaho 653, 240 P. 932; Cooper v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 45 Idaho 313, 262 P. 873; Alsup v. Saratoga Hote......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT