State v. Reynolds
Decision Date | 02 April 1914 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. UNITED RYS. CO. v. REYNOLDS et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Certiorari by the State, on the relation of the United Railways Company, against George D. Reynolds and others to quash a judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. Preliminary writ of certiorari (158 S. W. 446) quashed.
This is an original action in this court to quash a judgment entered by the St. Louis Court of Appeals, affirming a judgment of the circuit court of St. Louis city, in a case in which one Edward W. Nelson was respondent and the United Railways Company (the relator herein) was appellant (158 S. W. 446), for the alleged reason that said Court of Appeals failed to follow the last previous ruling of this court, as required by section 6, art. 6, Constitution of Missouri, as amended in the year 1884.
The particular issue upon which it is alleged that respondents, as such Court of Appeals, failed and refused to follow the last previous ruling of this court arose in this wise: The said Edward W. Nelson prosecuted an action in the circuit court of St. Louis city against the relator, for personal injuries alleged to have been inflicted by or through the negligence of relator, in which action a judgment was entered in favor of said Edward W. Nelson for $4,200. In the suit so prosecuted by said Nelson, there was evidence tending to prove that he was confined to his bed three weeks, and that he lost time from his work as a common laborer on account of his injuries, but there was no evidence as to what wages, if any, he had been receiving before his injuries, nor what his work was reasonably worth. The circuit court gave an instruction to the jury authorizing it to find for said Nelson for the time he had lost by reason of his alleged injuries. On appeal, error was assigned by relator on account of the aforesaid instruction. In refusing to reverse the judgment so rendered in favor of said Nelson, the relator asserts that said Court of Appeals failed to follow the ruling of this court in the cases of Slaughter v. Railroad, 116 Mo. 269, 274, 23 S. W. 760, Davidson v. Transit Co., 211 Mo. 320, 344, 109 S. W. 583, and Duke v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 347, 12 S. W. 636.
The instruction given by the circuit court, and which relator contends should have worked a reversal of the judgment obtained by said Nelson, reads as follows: "The court instructs you that, if you find for the plaintiff, you should, in estimating his damages, consider his physical condition before and since receiving the injuries for which he sues (as shown by the evidence), his loss of time, if any, and his physical and mental anguish, if any, suffered by him on account of his injuries at the time of and since such injuries (as shown by the evidence), and such damages, if any, as you may, from the evidence, find reasonably certain he will suffer in the future by reason of his injuries, and you will assess his damages at such sum as will, in your judgment, under the evidence, reasonably compensate him for such injuries, not exceeding the sum of $10,000." (The italics are our own, and are employed to the end of inviting attention to those words later in the opinion.)
The facts in said case of Nelson v. United Railways Co., and the reasons assigned by respondents for affirming the judgment of the circuit court in said cause, are set out in that part of their opinion which reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. Schofield
...in an instruction embodying their views. Browning v. Wabash Western Ry. Co., 27 S.W. 644, 124 Mo. 55; State ex rel. United Rys. Co. v. Reynolds, 165 S.W. 729, 257 Mo. 19; Dyrez v. Hammond Packing Co. et al., 194 S.W. BAILEY, J. This is an action for damages incurred in an automobile collisi......
-
Falvey v. Hicks
...W. 287; Powell v. Railroad Co., 255 Mo. 420, 164 S. W. 628; Sang v. St. Louis, 262 Mo. 454, 171 S. W. 347; State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. Reynolds, 257 Mo. 19, 165 S. W. 729; and Wingfield v. Railroad Co., 257 Mo. 347, 166 S. W. 1037. .A. careful reading and study of those cases, howe......
-
Dodson v. Gate City Oil Co.
... ... Macklin ... v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W.2d 19; ... Heigold v. United Rys. Co., 308 Mo. 142, 271 S.W ... 773; State ex rel. Long v. Ellison, 272 Mo. 571, 199 ... S.W. 988; Hall v. Coal & Coke Co., 260 Mo. 351, 168 ... S.W. 932; Mackie v. United Rys. Co., 288 ... Dry Goods ... Co., 273 S.W. 176; Koelling v. Ice Co., 267 ... S.W. 37; Bongner v. Ziegenhein, 165 Mo.App. 338; ... Cox v. Reynolds, 18 S.W.2d 578; Hall v. Ry ... Co., 124 Mo.App. 661; Childress v. Railroad ... Co., 141 Mo.App. 685; Rowe v. Hammond, 172 ... Mo.App. 213; ... ...
-
Moran v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
... ... much, if any, controversy on the trial on the question of ... fact which furnishes the basis of the present ... contention." In State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 257 ... Mo. 19, 38; Norris v. Railroad, 239 Mo. 695. In the ... instant case the defendant did not give the court ... ...