Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hutchinson
Decision Date | 06 October 1888 |
Citation | 40 Kan. 51,19 P. 312 |
Parties | THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. J. B. HUTCHINSON.--SAME v. MARY E. HUTCHINSON |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error to district court, McPherson county.
Motions for Rehearing.
THE defendants in error, plaintiffs below, filed motions for a hearing, which the court overruled at its session in October 1888. The facts are stated in U. P. Rly. Co. v. Hutchinson 39 Kan. 485, et seq., and in the opinion herein.
Motion denied.
A. L Williams, Charles. Monroe, and L. S. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
John D. Milliken, for defendants in error.
OPINION
The plaintiffs below ask a rehearing in these cases on the ground, as they contend, that the opinions reversing the judgments are not in harmony with the settled principles of law.
Upon the trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of plaintiffs, with answers to interrogatories submitted. Among the answers to the interrogatories are:
The district court in its eleventh instruction charged the jury as follows:
It was the duty of the jury to obey implicitly the instructions of the trial court, and having found a state of facts by their answers to the interrogatories constituting contributory negligence on the part of the injured party, and releasing the railway company from liability, their verdict should have followed their findings of fact. A jury cannot be permitted to disregard the instructions of a trial court, and in defiance of such instructions render a verdict contrary thereto; therefore the motions for rehearing must be overruled.
We have examined the authorities cited in the supplemental brief filed upon the part of the plaintiffs below. In Railroad Company v. Alexander, 62 Miss. 496, 496-499, the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for $ 175. The court refused to disturb the verdict, and held "that the result showed the appellee was mistaken, but his course in leading the horse over the crossing was a most natural one under the circumstances, and it was properly left to the jury to determine whether he should recover;" but in that case there were no special findings of facts by the jury, as in these cases, that "the plaintiff was in a situation to know whether it was dangerous to cross the street...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sparf v. United States
...La. Ann. pt. 1, p. 904; State v. Ford, 37 La. Ann. 443, 465; Fisher v. Railway Co., 131 Pa. St. 292, 297, 18 Atl. 1016; Railway Co. v. Hutchinson, 40 Kan. 51, 19 Pac. 312. 3 The decision of Mr. Justice Johnson, there referred to, does not appear to have been reported. But the decision of Mr......
-
Montana Eastern Railway Company v. Lebeck
... ... 56, 4 A. 370; March ... v. Portsmouth & C. R. Co. 19 N.H. 372; Nason v ... Woonsocket Union R. Co. 4 R. I. 377; 1 Lewis, Em. Dom ... 1105, 1106; Spencer v. Hartford, P. & F. R. Co. 10 R ... Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 69 Iowa 620, 29 N.W. 753; Union P. R ... Co. v. Hutchinson, 40 Kan. 51, 19 P. 312; Kansas ... City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Furst, 3 Kan.App. 265, 45 P ... ...
-
Jones v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co.
... ... track from which, after inspection, it could readily be ... shunted to the Union Pacific railway tracks, to which it was ... to be transferred for delivery at its final ... 708, 712; Neal v. Curtis & Co. Mfg. Co., 328 ... Mo. 389, 41 S.W.2d 543; Copley v. Union Pac. R. Co., ... 26 Utah 361, 73 P. 517; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v ... Behymer, 189 U.S. 468, 23 ... plaintiff was concerned, since he made no complaint of it ... Union P. Ry. Co. v. Hutchinson, 40 Kan. 51, 53, 19 ... P. 312; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Schroll, 76 ... Kan. 572, 92 ... ...
-
Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, Matter of
...reversed a judgment of the district court based on a verdict returned in disregard of an instruction. "In the case of U.P. Rly. Co. v. Hutchinson, 40 Kan. 51, 19 Pac. 312, the syllabus " 'The instructions of the trial court to the jury are the law of the case, for the jury to obey and follo......