Ott v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 18 July 1899
• Citation: 9 Kan.App. 886,58 P. 126
• Parties: OTT v. CUNNINGHAM.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

58 P. 126

9 Kan.App. 886

OTT v. CUNNINGHAM.

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department, Central Division

July 18, 1899

Error from district court, Marshall county; R. B. Spilman, Judge.

Action by Thomas Cunningham against Conrad Ott for damages. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Griggs, Rinaker & Bibb, for plaintiff in error.

W. W. Redmond, C. T. Mann, and E. A. Berry, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This action was begun in the district court of Marshall county by the defendant in error, Thomas Cunningham, against the plaintiff in error, to recover damages sustained by Cunningham by reason of Ott’s causing his horses to become frightened, and to run away, whereby he was overturned, and seriously and permanently injured. The action was tried to a jury, who found for the plaintiff, and awarded him damages in the sum of $2,000. This verdict was approved by the court, and judgment rendered accordingly. To reverse this the case is brought here.

But two assignments of error are urged: "The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence," and, "Errors of law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the plaintiff in error at the time of occurrence." Under the first assignment it is sufficient to say that a long and uniform line of decisions of the supreme court has settled the law of this state upon the question of a reviewing court weighing the evidence upon which a verdict is founded, and such court will not reverse a judgment for want of sufficient evidence to sustain it where to do so would require it to weigh evidence or decide on the credibility of witnesses, as these matters are within the exclusive province of the jury. Under the second allegation of error relied on, complaint is made that Percy Tilman and Belle Halloway were allowed to testify to matters occurring immediately after the accident. We think the matters testified to, although after the accident, were so intimately connected therewith as to form a part of the resgestae. The evidence was properly admitted. We see no reversible error in this case. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.