Tompkins v. Knut
| Decision Date | 06 June 1899 |
| Citation | 94 F. 956 |
| Parties | TOMPKINS v. KNUT. |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Kentucky |
Geo. W Jolly, Miller & Todd, and W. W. Clark, for plaintiff.
Powers & Atchison, for defendant.
In the case of Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261, the trial court, after hearing the opening statement by plaintiff's counsel to the jury as to what facts were expected to be proved to support the plaintiff's case and after verifying the accuracy of the statement, sustained a motion on behalf of defendant on that presentation of the case alone to instruct the jury to find a verdict against the plaintiff upon the ground that, if those statements were true, the contract sued upon was against public policy, and void. Upon a writ of error to the supreme court the proceeding was approved, and the judgment was affirmed. The plaintiff in this action for assault and battery and trespass has testified under oath, and stated the facts upon which he relies in support of his action, and the court is called upon to determine whether, assuming all the plaintiff says to be true, he is entitled to a verdict against the only defendant now remaining in the case, since the death of his wife, the former co-defendant, has abated the action as to her. As the plaintiff was a participant in the entire transaction out of which his action arose, and completely states his case, it is admissible, and proper, I think, to bring this question up now, because it would not be competent for him by other witnesses to contradict what he says; and while, on this motion, his statements must be accepted as true in his behalf, they may also, for the reason indicated, be taken as true against him. It appears from his testimony that, having been employed by the defendant and his wife and her brother the owners of the farms described in the pleadings, up to January 1, 1898, as a manager and overseer, his contract was soon afterwards renewed for the year 1898; that part of the agreement was that the plaintiff, besides his monthly wages was to have the use of the house on the premises for occupation by himself and family, and also provisions for the support of them all; that on the 24th of January, 1898 (the defendant and wife having come to the farm on invitation of the plaintiff in the preceding December, and having remained there, and all parties having been entirely friendly, up to January 24th), there was some dispute as to whether plaintiff was any longer wanted, or would be permitted to remain, as the employe of defendant and his wife; that on the succeeding day (January 25th), while the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Jennings
...210, 229 F.2d 784; Parelman v. Parelman, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 361, 210 F.2d 29; United States v. Dietrich, D.C.Neb., 126 F. 676; Tompkins v. Knut, D.C.Ky., 94 F. 956; Smith v. O'Brien, 66 App.D.C. 387, 88 F.2d 769; Hornblower v. George Washington University, 31 App.D.C. 64, 14 Ann.Cas. 696; Brow......
-
McCallum v. Harris
...is thus barred by her judicial admission. Wandling v. Wandling, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 857; Bell v. Harmon, Ky., 284 S.W.2d 812; and Tompkins v. Knut, C.C., 94 F. 956, are relied upon by appellant. It is true that in a pretrial deposition, as well as by her testimony at the trial, Golene Harris fa......
- Medberry v. Troutman