Thomas v. Rounds
| Decision Date | 07 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29609 |
| Citation | 161 Miss. 713,137 So. 894 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS et al. v. ROUNDS |
1 RELEASE.
Release signed by plaintiff four days after injuries nearly causing death for $100, paid to her physician at time when she claimed to have been unconscious, held properly excluded from jury.
2 CONTRIBUTION. Torts.
Tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable, and are not entitled to contribution between themselves.
3 AUTOMOBILES.
One suing ambulance owner and driver for personal injuries could take judgment against owner alone.
APPEAL from circuit court of Coahoma county HON. W. A. ALCORN, JR., Judge.
Action by Susie Rounds against G. T. Thomas and another. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendant named, defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Sam. C. Cook, Roberson & Cook and Greek P. Rice, all of Clarksdale, for appellant.
If the plaintiff had obtained satisfaction from either of the defendants (joint tortfeasors) for such damages as she may have received, she, on account thereof, has no longer any cause of action against the other tortfeasor.
Tanner v. Bowne, 9 Ann. Cas. 517.
When a technical release under seal or on satisfaction being made for the injury is given by the injured party to one of several joint wrongdoers, the courts have quite uniformly held this to release all, and to be a bar to an action against those not named in the release.
Where a party has once received full satisfaction and compensation for an injury inflicted, no matter from which one of the several tortfeasors, all are thereby released.
Bailey v. Delta Electric Light, Power & Mfg. Co., 86 Miss. 634, 38 So. 354.
Where a party was injured in a collision with a train of a railroad company, and where a release and settlement is pleaded in bar of the action, and where the evidence is in conflict as to his capacity to make an agreement, the question is for the jury, and its decision is binding.
Davis v. Elzey, 126 Miss. 789, 88 So. 630; Jones v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 72 Miss. 22, 16 So. 379; Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Turnbull, 71 Miss. 1029, 16 So. 346.
Good faith on the part of a wrongdoer, by whose negligence a personal injury is caused, and a full understanding on the part of the person injured as to his rights, are indispensable to the validity of a release of a claim for the injury, and that the evidence as to all the surrounding conditions and the attitude of the contracting parties is admissible on the issue as to the validity of the release.
Whittington v. H. T. Cottam Co., 130 So. 745; 33 C. J. 1169.
A judgment must be supported by the verdict, decision or findings in the case or it will be irregular and erroneous, although not void or inoperative. The defect may be waived. Where the verdict is joint, the judgment must be joint, unless plaintiff remits the damages as to one of the defendants or dismisses the action as to him, or the court grants him a new trial. Where the verdict is several, the judgment must be several.
The judgment must correspond with the material facts found by the verdict and embrace every matter properly forming a part of it.
Abbey v. Herrick, 27 Miss. 320.
Where the verdict is against all defendants as joint tortfeasors, and the judgment singles out one only as liable, the judgment is not supported by the verdict.
McMahon v. Hetchhetchy, 84 P. 350.
W. W. Venable and Maynard, Fitzgerald & Venable, all of Clarksdale, for appellee.
The court was not in error in excluding the testimony relative to the release and in failing to submit this issue to the jury.
Jones v. Railroad Co., 72 Miss. 22; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Ault, 101 Miss. 341; Hackler v. Natchez R. R. Co., 157 Miss. 432.
Judgments may be rendered for or against one or more of several plaintiffs or for or against one or more of several defendants; and in such cases the verdict shall be as the right may appear among the several parties to the action and shall state separately any amount allowed to any of the parties.
Such and so many verdicts and judgments--joint, separate and cross--as may be necessary to the adjustment of the rights of the several parties may be rendered in the same action.
In all cases, civil and criminal, a judgment or decree appealed from may be affirmed as to some of the appellants and be reserved as to others; and one of several appellants shall not be entitled to a judgment of reversal because of an error in the judgment or decree against another not affecting his rights in the case.
Since enactment of these statutes it has been a uniform rule that on appeal one cannot complain of errors which only affect others.
Knowles v. Geo. C. Summey et al., 52 Miss. 377; Lynch v. Thompson, 61 Miss. 354.
Where a master and servant are sued jointly, a judgment may be rendered against the master alone.
Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Clark, 85 Miss. 691; St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Sanderson, 54 So. 885.
Where there is joint and several liability, under section 3404, Code 1930, the one against whom judgment is rendered cannot be prejudiced by failure to render judgment against another even though the other is equally liable.
Barrett v. Carter, 69 Miss. 593; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Hardy, 55 So. 967; William Bros. v. Bank of Blue Mt., 132 Miss. 178; Wilkinson v. Love, Supt. of Banks, 115 So. 707; Duncan v. Scott County, 64 Miss. 38; Hardware Co. v. Steele, 115 Miss. 663.
Argued orally by Lake Robinson and Greek P. Rice, for appellant, and by Webb Venable, for appellee.
An ambulance belonging to appellant, Thomas, was being driven in and about appellant's business by his servant upon and along a paved street in the town of Shelby about dark at a rate of speed of approximately forty-five miles an hour. In swerving around a wagon or wagons, the said ambulance struck appellee, who was attempting to cross said street at an intersection, and she was hurled a distance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Jefferson
... ... perfectly by Whittington v. Cottam, 158 Miss. 827, ... 130 So. 745, 76 A.L.R. 332, note 344, approved in Thomas v ... Rounds, 137 So. 894, 161 Miss. 712 ... Foster ... v. Meridian, 116 So. 820, 150 Miss. 715; Whitney v ... Cook, 53 Miss. 551, at ... ...
-
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Smith
... ... The liability proceeded from different principles of law ... See, also, Thomas v. Rounds, 161 Miss. 713, 137 So ... 3. The ... appellant urges that, if it be assumed that the power company ... was Smith's master, ... ...
-
Gulf Refining Co. v. Ferrell
...and overreaching so often condemned by this court. Jones v. A. & V. Ry. Co., 72 Miss. 22; R. R. Co. v. Ault, 101. Miss. 341; Thomas v. Rounds, 161 Miss. 713, 717. tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable is no longer open to question in this state. The court cannot control the verdict o......
-
Burch v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
...are jointly and severally liable for their torts. North Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Peters, 148, S.W. 273, 103 Ark. 564; Thomas v. Rounds, 161 Miss. 713, 137 So. 894; Levy McMullen, 169 Miss. 659, 152 So. 899; Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Smith, 153 So. 379; Miss. Central R. R. Co. v. Roberts, 160 S......