O'Neil v. Brown
Decision Date | 19 March 1914 |
Parties | O'NEIL v. BROWN et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division.
Action by Elizabeth O'Neil against Patrick J. Brown and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
O'Doherty & Yonts and Henry W. Sanders, all of Louisville, for appellant.
O'Neal & O'Neal, of Louisville, for appellees.
Elizabeth O'Neil sued Julia P. Brown and Patrick J. Brown, her husband, in the Jefferson circuit court to recover damages for injuries claimed to have been received by her as the result of the falling of the stairs leading from the basement to the first floor of a house which the said plaintiff had rented from the defendants by verbal lease, the plaintiff alleging that the defendants agreed and bound themselves by the terms of said verbal lease to keep and maintain the premises in good condition of repair, and that they negligently permitted the stairs to become and remain in an unsafe condition, thereby causing her injuries. Upon a trial of the action, the court directed a verdict for the defendants upon the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove a contract to keep and maintain the premises in good condition of repair, and plaintiff appeals.
It appears from the record that, after plaintiff and the physician who attended her had testified, the court indicated that a verdict would be directed for the defendants upon the ground above stated; and that thereupon the court, together with the plaintiff and the attorneys for the respective parties, repaired to the chambers of the judge, and there the following testimony was given by plaintiff:
Thereupon plaintiff's attorney offered to ask her this question "Did or not Mrs. Brown, at the time you made the contract with her for this property, agree and promise to keep this property in repair during the time you had it?" And this question the court refused to permit plaintiff to answer; and properly so. The question calls for the conclusion of the witness.
On her examination in chief, before the jury, the plaintiff was asked this question: "Was or not there any agreement between you with relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Midland Oil Co. v. Thigpen
...S.) 330, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 829; Glynn v. Lyceum Theater Co., 87 Conn. 237, 87 A. 796; Cromwell v. Allen, 151 Ill. App. 404; O'Neil v. Brown, 158 Ky. 118, 164 S. W. 315; Korach v. Loeffel, 168 Mo. App. 414, 151 S. W. 790; Kohnle v. Paxton, 268 Mo. 463, 188 S. W. 155; Davis v. Smith, 26 R. I. ......
-
Rich v. Swalm
... ... 147, 136 N.Y.S. 364; Murrell v ... Crawford, 102 Kan. 118, 169 P. 561; Thompson v ... Clemens, 96 Md. 1961 60 L. R. A. 580; Brown v. Toronto ... General Hospital, 23 Ont. Rep. 599 ... The ... ordinary damages for breach of a, general agreement to keep ... the ... have been in contemplation of the parties at the time they ... made the contract as the probable result of a, breach of it ... Oneil ... v. Brown, 158 Ky. 118, 164 S.W. 315; Hadley v ... Baxendale, 26 Eng. L. & Eq. Rep. 398 ... As a ... matter of law, this contract ... ...
-
Murphy v. Dee
...696; Whittle v. Webster, 55 Ga. 180; Veal v. Hanlon, 123 Ga. 642; Thompson v. Clemens, 96 Md. 196; Sieber v. Blanc, 76 Cal. 173; O'Neil v. Brown, 158 Ky. 118; Ploen Staff, 9 Mo.App. 309; Rogan v. Dockery, 23 Mo.App. 313; Quay v. Lucas, 25 Mo.App. 4; Little v. Macadaras, 29 Mo.App. 332, and ......
-
Richmond v. Standard Elkhorn Coal Co.
...1112, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1409, 1909, 63 L. R. A. 649; King v. Cassell, 150 Ky. 537, 150 S.W. 682, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774; O'Neil v. Brown, 158 Ky. 118, 164 S.W. 315; Nixon v. Gammon, 191 Ky. 175, 229 S.W. 75; Montgomery v. Blocher, 194 Ky. 280, 239 S.W. 46. Other Kentucky cases are contained ......