New York, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. White
| Decision Date | 06 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 14903.,14903. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | NEW YORK, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. WHITE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Vermillion Circuit Court; Wm. C. Wait, Judge.
Action by Earl O. White against the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Aikman & Sawyer, of Newport, for appellant.
Wm. H. Beeler, of Newport, and Miller & Causey, of Terre Haute, for appellee.
Appellee filed suit against appellant to recover damages for the loss, by death, of hogs, allegedly caused by exposure while being transported by appellant upon its lines.
The complaint alleged that the shipment consisted of 431 hogs, loaded on or about January 20, 1930, in two cars; that it was an interstate shipment and appellant was the terminating carrier; that, when delivered to the initial carrier, the hogs were in good health; that, when they were delivered to appellee at the destination point, 8 hogs were dead, and a great number were sick; that appellee employed a veterinarian to care for the hogs, but 132 died within five days after the delivery.
Appellant filed an answer in general denial. The cause was tried by a jury, which rendered a verdict for appellee in the sum of $600.
Appellant requested, and the court submitted two interrogatories to the jury. The interrogatories and the answers thereto given by the jury were as follows:
1. “Were the pigs in question watered by the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company?” Answer: “We find no evidence given to show whether they were watered or not watered by the above company.”
2. “Were the pigs in question watered by the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company (initial carrier)?” Answer: “Yes.”
Appellant filed a motion for judgment in its favor on the answers to the interrogatories, which motion was overruled.
Judgment having been rendered on the verdict, appellant perfected this appeal, assigning the court's action on said motion for judgment on the answers to the interrogatories as the sole error relied upon for reversal.
[1] In passing on this question we cannot consider the evidence that was introduced; we must determine the question by a consideration of the complaint, answer, general verdict, interrogatories, and answers to the interrogatories. Jeffersonville Mfg. Co. v. Holden (1913) 180 Ind. 301, 102 N. E. 21.
[2] We must yield to the general verdict all intendments, inferences, and presumptions which might be reasonably drawn from any evidence which would be admissible under the pleadings. Consolidated Stone Co. v. Summit (1899) 152 Ind. 297, 53 N. E. 235;Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Markle (1918) 187 Ind. 553, 119 N. E. 371.
[3] The answers to interrogatories must be construed strictly. The answers cannot be broadened by inferences. The effect of said interrogatories and answers must be considered to be a determination of two facts and no more, to wit: (1) That there was no evidence introduced showing whether or not appellant watered the hogs; (2) that the initial carrier watered the hogs.
The main question for us to determine is whether those two facts, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial