Stephenson v. Flagg

• Citation: 41 Neb. 371,59 N.W. 785
• Parties: STEPHENSON ET AL. v. FLAGG.
• Decision Date: 26 June 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

41 Neb. 371

59 N.W. 785

STEPHENSON ET AL.

v.FLAGG.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 26, 1894.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The verdict in this case was sustained by ample evidence as to all points in issue. A review of it is therefore unnecessary.

2. Where the assignments in the petition in error challenge the correctness, in group, of

any of the trial court's rulings, either as to the giving or refusing to give instructions, no consideration of such assignment can be had in this court, further than to ascertain that the challenge is not well founded as to any instruction in the group in respect to which assignment is made.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Clarkson, Judge.

Action by Ada E. Flagg against James Stephenson and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Edward W. Simeral and J. C. Cowin, for plaintiffs in error.

Howard B. Smith and Clinton N. Powell, for defendant in error.

RYAN, C.

On the 6th of March, 1889, there was filed in the district court of Douglas county the petition of Ada E. Flagg against James Stephenson and Cornelius F. Williams, partners doing business under the firm name of the Omaha Cab Company. The damages claimed were alleged in the petition to have been sustained by plaintiff having been struck and injured while driving on Douglas street, in Omaha, and that the collision was caused by the negligence of defendants, through the fault of a driver of one of the defendants' Hansom cabs. The petition, at length, described the nature of the injuries sustained by plaintiff, and closed with a prayer for judgment in the sum of $5,241 and costs. The answer was an admission of the existence of the partnership alleged as existing between defendants, their ownership of a Hansom cab, and a denial of every other allegation of the petition, closing with an averment that whatever injury had been sustained by plaintiff was entirely owing to her own carelessness. There were returned two verdicts, upon the first of which no judgment was rendered. On the trial which followed the setting aside of the first verdict, there was a second verdict for plaintiff. Judgment was rendered on this last verdict for $2,000, for the reversal of which the defendants filed their petition in error in this court, accompanied by a proper transcript and bill of exceptions.

The first contention of plaintiffs in error is that there was no sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. The evidence urged as wanting is that which would show that the injuries described on the trial had in February of 1891 were traceable to the accident which occurred April 7, 1887. If there had been no evidence save that of the expert physicians produced by the plaintiffs in error, this argument would be entitled to consideration. After all, this very evidence was not positive as to the relation of cause and effect. It was full as to present ailments, and the manifestations attending them; but, when...