Martin v. Kansas City, No. 13644.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtBland
Citation224 S.W. 141
Docket NumberNo. 13644.
Decision Date26 June 1920
PartiesMARTIN v. KANSAS CITY.
224 S.W. 141
MARTIN
v.
KANSAS CITY.
No. 13644.
Kansas City, Court of Appeals. Missouri.
June 26, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Clarence A. Burney, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Dennis Martin against Kansas City. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. M. Harber and A. F. Smith, both of Kansas City, for appellant.

Hogsett & Boyle, of Kansas City, for respondent.

[224 S.W. 142]

BLAND, J.


This is an action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $1,000 and defendant has appealed. Plaintiff was riding as a passenger in a hired Ford automobile on August 17, 1917, about 1:30 a. m. The automobile was proceeding east on the Twenty-Third street viaduct in Kansas City, Kan., when it collided with a pile of lumber negligently left unlighted by the defendant on the driveway portion of the viaduct. The collision caused the automobile to turn over, resulting in plaintiff's injury.

This case is a companion case to the case of Roy v. Kansas City, 224 S. W. 132, decided by this court, but not yet [officially] reported. Plaintiff in this case was a fellow passenger of plaintiff in the Roy Case. It is unnecessary to recite the facts in regard to the accident as they will be found set forth in full in the Roy Case. The points made in this case are largely the same as those in the Roy Case, and it is not necessary for us to again pass upon the points raised in this case that are the same as those raised and decided in the Roy Case. We will content ourselves by passing upon the points made in this case that are not the same as those in the other case.

The same constitutional point is raised in this case as was brought forward in the Roy Case, but the circumstances out of which the point arises in this case are somewhat different from those in the Roy Case, the difference being that in this case plaintiff before the trial amended her petition so as to state that the accident happened in the state of Kansas. Defendant did not raise any constitutional point in its answer in this case, or at any time prior thereto. Defendant not having raised the constitutional question at the earliest moment that it could have done so, to wit, in its answer, the question has been waived. Lohmeyer v. St. Louis Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685, 113 S. W. 1108.

The original petition charged that the accident happened in Missouri, but before the trial plaintiff amended her petition, charging that the accident happened in Kansas. Defendant thereupon moved to strike out the amended petition as being a departure from the original petition. The trial court overruled the motion. Defendant did not stand upon its motion but answered to the merits and went to trial. Under such circumstances if there is any merit in the contention that there was a departure, such a plea is not now available. Castleman v. Castleman, 184 Mo. 432, 83 S. W. 757; Dakan v. Chase & Son Mere. Co., 197 Mo. 238, 270, 94 S. W. 944; Ruecking Const. Co. v. Withnell, 269 Mo. 546, 191 S. W. 685.

It is insisted that the court erred in permitting the superintendent of repairs of the city to testify that the temporary viaduct was built by Kansas City, Mo., and that he, in his capacity of superintendent of repairs, from time to time made repairs on such viaduct prior to the accident. Defendant's evidence all shows that these repairs were made by the employés in the repair department of the city under the direction of the superintendent, and that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...was overruled, and respondent answered in the affirmative. Johannes v. Edward G. Becht Laundry Co., 274 S.W. 377; Martin v. Kansas City, 224 S.W. 141; Barfoot v. White Star Line, 170 Mich. 349, 136 N.W. 437. (22) The verdict is so grossly excessive as to show conclusively that it was the re......
  • Ferrell v. Sikeston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., COCA-COLA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 26, 1959
    ...which she undertook to speak [contrast Hall v. Wilkerson, Page 296 Mo.App., 84 S.W.2d 1063, 1065; Martin v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 224 S.W. 141, 142(5); Eames v. New York Life Ins. Co., 134 Mo.App. 331, 114 S.W. 85, 87(3)], nor a case in which plaintiff's testimony was so riddled by self-con......
  • Sullivan v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., No. 30356.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...v. Railroad, 134 Mo. App. 80; Jopson v. Shaw, 211 Mo. App. 336; Unrein v. Oklahoma, 295 Mo. 353, 244 S.W. 924; Martin v. Kansas City, 224 S.W. 141; Disbrow v. Peoples Co., 170 Mo. App. 585; Minia v. St. L. Cooperage Co., 175 Mo. App. 91; Southern Iron Co. v. Smith, 257 Mo. 226; Nash v. Dowl......
  • Denney v. Spot Martin, Inc., No. 7783
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 21, 1959
    ...of that concerning which he undertook to speak [contrast Hall v. Wilkerson, Mo.App., 84 S.W.2d 1063, 1065; Martin v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 224 S.W. 141, 142(5); Eames v. New York Life Ins. Co., 134 Mo.App. 331, 114 S.W. 85, 87(3)], nor a case in which the testimony of the witness was so rid......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...was overruled, and respondent answered in the affirmative. Johannes v. Edward G. Becht Laundry Co., 274 S.W. 377; Martin v. Kansas City, 224 S.W. 141; Barfoot v. White Star Line, 170 Mich. 349, 136 N.W. 437. (22) The verdict is so grossly excessive as to show conclusively that it was the re......
  • Ferrell v. Sikeston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., COCA-COLA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 26, 1959
    ...which she undertook to speak [contrast Hall v. Wilkerson, Page 296 Mo.App., 84 S.W.2d 1063, 1065; Martin v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 224 S.W. 141, 142(5); Eames v. New York Life Ins. Co., 134 Mo.App. 331, 114 S.W. 85, 87(3)], nor a case in which plaintiff's testimony was so riddled by self-con......
  • Sullivan v. Union Electric Light & Power Co., No. 30356.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...v. Railroad, 134 Mo. App. 80; Jopson v. Shaw, 211 Mo. App. 336; Unrein v. Oklahoma, 295 Mo. 353, 244 S.W. 924; Martin v. Kansas City, 224 S.W. 141; Disbrow v. Peoples Co., 170 Mo. App. 585; Minia v. St. L. Cooperage Co., 175 Mo. App. 91; Southern Iron Co. v. Smith, 257 Mo. 226; Nash v. Dowl......
  • Denney v. Spot Martin, Inc., No. 7783
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 21, 1959
    ...of that concerning which he undertook to speak [contrast Hall v. Wilkerson, Mo.App., 84 S.W.2d 1063, 1065; Martin v. Kansas City, Mo.App., 224 S.W. 141, 142(5); Eames v. New York Life Ins. Co., 134 Mo.App. 331, 114 S.W. 85, 87(3)], nor a case in which the testimony of the witness was so rid......
  • 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