The Kansas City v. Fisher

Decision Date01 January 1892
Citation30 P. 111,49 Kan. 17
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesTHE KANSAS CITY, WYANDOTTE & NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. GEORGE A. FISHER

Error from Leavenworth District Court.

THE opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed.

William C. Hook, M. Summerfield, and Pratt, Ferry & Hagerman, for plaintiff in error.

Lucien Baker, for defendant in error.

HORTON, C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HORTON, C. J.:

The judgment in this case must be reversed, upon the authority of K. C. W. & N. W. Rld. Co. v. Ryan, just decided. In this case, as in that, the trial judge was dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury and stated that it did not meet with his approval. He, however, said that he would "stand out of the way," and then overruled the motion for a new trial. It was his duty to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial. Upon the trial, the railroad company asked the jury to be instructed as follows:

"The market value means the fair value of the property as between one who wants to purchase and one who wants to sell, not what could be obtained for it under peculiar circumstances when a greater than its fair price could be obtained, nor its speculative value; not a value obtained from the necessities of another; nor, on the other hand, is it to be limited to that price which the property would bring when forced off at auction under the hammer. It is what it would bring at a fair public sale when one party wanted to sell and the other to buy."

This was refused. We think it should have been given, in order that the jury might clearly understand the proper definition of market value, or fair value of the property appropriated.

The judgment of the district court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. 3 Suth. Dam. 462; Lawrence v. Boston, 119 Mass. 126.

All the Justices concurring.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hamilton v. The Atchison
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1915
    ... ... Chapman, 38 Kan. 307, 16 P. 695, 5 Am. St. Rep. 744; ... K. C. W. & N.W. Rld. Co. v. Fisher, 49 ... Kan. 17, 30 P. 111; C. K. & W. Rld. Co. v ... Parsons, 51 Kan. 408, 32 P. 1083.) ... court in granting a new trial. (Bailey v. Beck, 21 ... Kan. 462, 464; City of ... [148 P. 650] ... Kinsley v. Morse, 40 Kan. 588, 20 P. 222; Taylor ... v. Abbott, 85 ... ...
  • American Bauxite Company v. Board of Equalization of Saline County
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1915
  • Kansas City
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1892
    ... ... the attention of the court was directed to it by ... defendant's refused instructions 12 and 13 ... As ... counsel's argument is for the three cases, and alike ... applicable to all, we are willing to stand by the record of ... all of them. The Fisher case was tried first, on April 16 and ... 17. This case was tried upon April 18 and 19. In the Fisher ... case, without either party asking an instruction on the ... subject, the court charged the jury as to averaging. When we ... came to try the Ryan case, it was not presumptuous for us to ... ...
  • Redhead Bros. v. Wyoming Cattle Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1905
    ...party wants to sell and the other to buy. Low v. R. R., 63 N.H. 557 (3 A. 739; Esch v. R. R., 72 Wis. 229 (39 N.W. 129); Kansas City R. v. Fisher, 49 Kan. 17 (30 P. 111); Lawrence v. Boston, 119 Mass. In Bullard v. Stone, 67 Cal. 477 (8 P. 17), speaking of the buyer's remedy against the sel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT