Post v. Olmsted
| Decision Date | 07 April 1896 |
| Parties | POST v. OLMSTED. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Evidence in an action by an administrator for injuries causing the death of his decedent examined, and held sufficient to sustain the verdict.
2. A verdict of $2,400 in such a case held not so clearly excessive as to warrant a reversal, where the deceased was a boy 17 years old, a competent compositor, able to earn $4 a day, and his next of kin his father, 46 years old, a poor man, with four younger children, although there was no evidence that the son had as yet supplied his father with any considerable amounts of money.
3. Other questions raised, not being supported by any sufficient assignments in the motion for a new trial or petition in error, not considered.
Error to district court, Douglas county; Scott, Judge.
Action by Robert H. Olmsted, administrator of William Allen Daniel, deceased, against Bernhard H. Post. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.M. V. Gannon, Martin Langdon, W. J. Clair, and Cowin & McHugh, for plaintiff in error.
McCoy & Olmsted, for defendant in error.
This was an action by Olmsted, as administrator of William Allen Daniel, deceased, to recover from Post for injuries causing the death of plaintiff's decedent, alleged to be due to the negligence of the defendant. There were a verdict and judgment in the district court for the plaintiff for $2,400, which the defendant seeks to reverse. We designate the parties as they appeared in the district court. The defendant, in a very elaborate brief, urges a number of technical objections to the record, which he claims preclude us from an examination of any of the errors assigned. The points so raised are so numerous that we pass them over without a detailed consideration, inasmuch as a consideration of the case on its merits, so far as is permitted by already well-settled rules of practice, requires an affirmance of the judgment.
Complaint is made of certain rulings of the trial court on the admission of evidence. These we cannot consider, as there is no assignment in the petition in error presenting such questions.
Complaint is also made of certain instructions given by the court. In the motion for a new trial, and also in the petition in error, the only assignment with reference to these instructions is that “the court erred in giving instructions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, which was duly excepted to at the time by the defendant.” Under a well-established rule, this assignment can be considered no further than to ascertain that one of those complained of was correct. It is at once apparent from an examination of the charge that a number were free from error. So this assignment must fail.
Another assignment is that the court erred in not giving instructions 1 and 2, asked by the defendant. No such instructions appear in the record.
A further assignment is that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. As the motion for a new trial assigns six grounds, and no one is designated in the assignment in the petition in error, this presents nothing for review.
The remaining assignments are that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, and that it is contrary to law. It is not contrary to law if supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence tends to show that the defendant was a dairyman, using in his business a number of teams and wagons. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial