TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Miller v. Swift & Co.

George Miller v. Swift & Company

Miller v. Swift & Co., 158 N.W. 387 (Neb. 1916)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 3, 1916
Docket
No. 18854
Judges
Fawcett
Citations
158 N.W. 387100 Neb. 441916 Neb. LEXIS 130
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Appeal from Justice Court: Trial de Novo. In tlie trial in the district court to a jury of an action appealed from justice court, it is error to admit in evidence, over the objection of the appellant, a transcript from the justice containing detailed findings of fact and the judgment of such justice.
Summary
Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: James P. English, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fawcett

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Fawcett, J.

From a judgment for plaintiff, in justice court in Douglas county, for personal injuries, defendant appealed to the district court, where plaintiff was again successful, and defendant has appealed to this court.

Plaintiff alleges that he was told by his foreman to carry two panes of glass, each 40 by 46 inches in size, from the first floor to the second. In order to do so he was required to ascend a flight of stairs which the evidence shows was about four feet wide and without any turn. He carried the first pane up safely, but, in carrying the second pane, when he reached the head of the stairs and turned *45 to go east, the glass broke. One of the broken pieces struck him on the hand and made a bad cut which resulted in a loss of 27 days’ time and an expenditure of $11 for surgical treatment, and caused him more or less suffering. In entering the judgment, the justice made findings of fact on which he based the judgment. On the trial in the district court plaintiff testified in his own behalf, and then offered the entire transcript from the justice court. Over defendant’s objection the transcript was received in evidence. The transcript contained the following findings by the justice:

“I find that plaintiff, while in the employ of defendant on Sept. 8, 1913, was ordered, by the foreman in charge of him to carry a pane.of glass from the first floor to the second floor; that he remonstrated, but nevertheless proceeded to carry said pane of glass from first floor to second floor; that said pane, of glass was defective, which was known both to the said foreman and this plaintiff; that as he reached the top step of said stairs and turned east the said pane of glass broke and cut plaintiff’s hand, thereby necessitating his being out of work for a period of 27 days and causing him mental pain and suffering; that said injury was caused through carelessness and negligence; that a reasonable compensation for the injury so received is $125. Wherefore I give judgment for the plaintiff for $125 and costs' of suit taxed at $3.40.”

The reason given by the trial court for admitting the transcript was that “it is part of the files in the case.” So were the allegations in’ plaintiff’s petition, but no one would contend that plaintiff could introduce them as evidence of his right to recover. Counsel say the transcript was material for the purpose of showing upon what issues the case was tried before the justice. The transcript may be used for that purpose, but it must be so used with the court. The jury has nothing to do with determining the issues upon which the case is presented to them. The introduction of the findings and judgment of the justice as evidence was peculiarly prejudicial in this case, where *46 plaintiff was relying upon his own testimony, which upon the most material points was in conflict with the testimony of the foreman, introduced by defendant. It is argued that plaintiff has recovered in two courts and this court ought not to set aside the recovery. We recognize the force of this contention, and under ordinary circumstances it would prevail, but in the case at bar the error is too plain to be ignored.

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. O'Byrne v. McCormick92 S.W.2d 1005 (Mo. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. O'Byrne v. McCormick92 S.W.2d 1005 (Mo. Ct. App. 1936)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list