Lott v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.
DELBERT F. LOTT v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. R. CO.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
AILSHIE, C. J.
— This is an appeal from a judgment awarding $250 and costs to the respondent as damages for the killing of two horses, which were run down by appellant’s train.
1. It is contended that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. There is some evidence in *325 the record which would lead to the conclusion reached by the jury, and for that reason we ymul-d not feel justified in reversing the judgment. It má,y reasonably be concluded that the railroad company was negligent in not maintaining a cattle-guard at the ends of its fences near the northern boundary of the city of Rexburg where the accident occurred. (Kirn v. Cape Girardeau & C. Ry. Co., 149 Mo. App. 708 , 129 S. W. 475 .)
2. The objection to the instructions is based upon the theory that there is no evidence to support a verdict and that the instructions are not applicable to any evidence given in the case. Having determined that there was some evidence which would justify the verdict of the jury, we conclude that the objections to the instructions are not w.ell taken. The judgment is affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.
Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur. '
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.