Prewitt-Spurr Mfg. Co. v. Woodall
| Decision Date | 23 December 1905 |
| Parties | PREWITT-SPURR MFG. CO. v. WOODALL. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; J. A. Cartwright, Judge.
Action by Frank Woodall, by his next friend, against the Prewitt-Spurr Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
W. H. Williamson, for appellant. J. B. Daniel and Paul W. Hoggins, for appellee.
Frank Woodall, a minor about 15 years of age, by his next friend, brought this suit to recover damages for an injury received by him while employed in the manufactory of the plaintiff in error, resulting from the alleged negligence of his employer. There was a verdict and judgment for $3,700 in favor of the plaintiff below. The cause is before us by appeal in the nature of a writ of error.
Many errors are assigned upon the action of the circuit judge. All of these may be pretermitted, save one, which is determinative of the case upon the present record.
During the cross-examination of the surgeon who rendered professional services to young Woodall at the time of and subsequent to the injury, and who was introduced as a witness by the plaintiff in error, the counsel for the defendant in error asked him as follows: "Are you not the regular employed doctor of the insurance company?" Upon exception the trial judge held this inquiry to be incompetent. Not satisfied with this ruling, the counsel put a question to the witness still more objectionable in form, to wit: "I will ask you if it is not a fact that the Prewitt-Spurr Manufacturing Co. is insured in an accident liability company for liability occurring from this accident?" The exception interposed to this interrogatory was likewise sustained by the court. Subsequently one of the officers of the company was introduced as a witness, when the same counsel, addressing the trial judge, in spite of the fact that it had been twice announced that by his questions the counsel was seeking to bring into the record impertinent matter, he said to the court: "Now I want to prove that this company is insured against accident." Again he was told this could not be done. Not satisfied, however, with unusual tenacity of purpose, the counsel in his concluding address to the jury returned once more to the subject of these various objections using these words: "But I will tell you this, and I think you can infer this much, that if the company had not had — I don't know whether it had or not; that is not for me to say; the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FW Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 187.
...A. 333; Kerr v. Brass Mfg. Co., 155 Mich. 191, 118 N. W. 925; Cosselmon v. Dunfee, 172 N. Y. 507, 65 N. E. 494; Prewitt-Spurr Mfg. Co. v. Woodall, 115 Tenn. 605, 90 S. W. 623; Tremblay v. Harnden, 162 Mass. 383, 38 N. E. 972; Walters v. Appalachian Power Co., 75 W. Va. 676, 84 S. E. 617; Ho......
-
New Aetna Portland Cement Co. v. Hatt
... ... in the reviewing court. Kerr v. Brass Mfg. Co., 155 ... Mich. 191, 194, 195, 118 N.W. 925; Cosselmon v ... Dunfee, 172 N.Y. 507, 65 N.E ... [231 F. 619.] ... 131 A.D. 747, 749, 750, 116 N.Y.Supp. 90; Manufacturing ... Co. v. Woodall, 115 Tenn. 605, 609, 90 S.W. 623; ... Emery Dry Goods Co. v. De Hart, 130 Ill.App. 244, ... 247, ... ...
-
Wack v. Schoenberg Manufacturing Co.
...158 N.Y. Supp. 200; Ross v. Williamette Valley Tr. Co., 248 Pac. 1088; Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 70 Atl. 884; Pewitt-Spurr Co. v. Woodall, 90 S.W. 623; Lange v. Lawrence, 259 S.W. 261; Spinney's Admx. v. Hooker & Son, 102 Atl. 53; Rinehardt v. Dennis, 120 S.W. 269; Adams v. Cline......
-
Wack v. F. E. Schoenberg Mfg. Co.
...Co., 158 N.Y.S. 200; Ross v. Williamette Valley Tr. Co., 248 P. 1088; Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 70 A. 884; Pewitt-Spurr Co. v. Woodall, 90 S.W. 623; Lange v. Lawrence, 259 S.W. 261; Admx. v. Hooker & Son, 102 A. 53; Rinehardt v. Dennis, 120 S.W. 269; Adams v. Cline Ice Cream Co.,......