Trott v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 24 October 1901 |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Parties | TROTT v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supplement to opinion filed May 16, 1901. 86 N. W. 33.
Appellant asks a rehearing as to the ruling announced in the first part of the fourth paragraph of the opinion to the effect that the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to prove that a large number of its guard rails were unblocked on the line of its road over which defendant worked. A careful review of the record leads us to the conclusion that this question was not raised thereby. The defendant called one Biddings, who, having testified that there were 52 guard rails at Muscatine that had been unblocked for months, some for more than a year, was asked as follows: To which he answered: “Yes.” Plaintiff objected to the question as leading, suggestive, irrelevant, and immaterial, whereupon the court inquired: “What is the object of this inquiry?” To which appellant's counsel replied: “The object is to show the large number of unblocked guard rails along the line of the road over which plaintiff worked.” Objection sustained. Defendant excepts. Plaintiff objected as leading, suggestive, irrelevant, and immaterial, which objection was sustained, and defendant excepts. It was upon these rulings that appellant based its claim of error. It will be observed that the first interrogatory was simply whether the witness knew, and the second is as to the condition of the guard rails at Washington and West Davenport, stations between Elden and Rock Island. Appellant made no further offer of proof as to the condition of the guard rails at other stations than at Muscatine. It appears from appellant's abstract and appellee's amendment thereto that prior to this the plaintiff had been called and examined as a witness in his own behalf, and, having testified in chief: -- he was asked: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Long
...Sherman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. (1885) 34 Minn. 259, 25 N.W. 593; Trott v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (1901) 115 Iowa 80, 86 N.W. 33, 87 N.W. 722; Mayes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (1884) 63 Iowa 562, 14 N.W. 340, 19 N.W. 680; Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co. (1891) 108 Mo. 364,......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Long
...Sherman v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. (1885) 34 Minn. 259, 25 N.W. 593; Trott v. Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. (1901) 115 Iowa, 80, 86 N.W. 33, 87 N.W. 722; Mayes Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. (1884) 63 Iowa, 562, 14 N.W. 340, 19 N.W. 680; Hamilton v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co. (1891) 108 Mo. 364, 18......
-
Jones v. Okla. Planing Mill & Mfg. Co.
...of the court thereon. Miller v. National Eng. & Stamp. Co., 116 Ill. App. 99; Trott v. C., R. I. & P. R. Co., 115 Iowa 80, 86 N.W. 33, 87 N.W. 722. ¶12 The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, affirmed. ¶13 All the Justices concur, except KANE, C. J., not participating. ...
-
Robinson v. Helena Light & Ry. Co.
... ... Rooney v. Railway Co., 173 Mass. 222, 53 N.E. 435; ... Nelson v. Railway, 104 Mich. 582, 62 N.W. 993; ... Trott v. Railway, 115 Iowa, 80, 86 N.W. 33, 87 N.W ... 722; Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, 2 N.W. 715, 31 ... Am. Rep. 409; Harrison v. Railway, 116 ... ...