McIntyre v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1898
• Citation: 56 Neb. 587,77 N.W. 57
• Parties: MCINTYRE v. UNION PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

56 Neb. 587

77 N.W. 57

MCINTYRE

v.UNION PAC. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 17, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An assignment of error, in the motion for a new trial, relative to giving instructions, must be specific as to each. If en masse, and determined without force as to one, the assignment may be overruled.

2. The verdict held not contrary to the evidence, nor open to the objection that there was not sufficient in the evidence to support it.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Keysor, Judge.

Action by Seneca B. McIntyre against the Union Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.Martin Langdon, for plaintiff in error.

W. R. Kelly and E. P. Smith, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, C. J.

The defendant contracted to safely transport for plaintiff 11 stallions from Jersey, Colo., to McCamon, Idaho; and during transit one of the horses died, it was alleged, through the carelessness and negligence of the company, its agents and employés. The particular allegation of the petition relative to carelessness and negligence was as follows: “That on the ______ day of January, 1891, at Rawlins station, in the state of Wyoming, the defendant, as such corporation and common carrier, by and through its agents and servants so carelessly and negligently ran, managed, and operated its locomotive engine, and the car upon which said stallion was being transported, that the said car collided with and ran against other cars and obstacles upon said defendant's road, which were under its control, with the locomotive and car aforesaid, by reason whereof said cars were broken to pieces and wrecked; and by reason of said carelessness and negligence on the part of said defendant, its agents, servants, and employés, said stallion was killed, without any fault or negligence on the part of plaintiff.” The contract of shipment was one in which it was provided that some person, for the shipper, should accompany, and have, in certain matters, charge of, the live stock, and care for it. In the answer appeared the following statement: “Further answering, the said defendant states on information and belief that when the said horse was placed in the said car it was fraudulently represented by the said plaintiff to be sound and in good health, whereas the said horse was at that time sick and diseased, without the knowledge of said defendant, and that by means of said representation the said plaintiff obtained said...