TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Byrum v. Edwards

John Byrum v. A. F. Edwards, as Sheriff

Byrum v. Edwards, 71 P. 250 (Kan. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 10, 1903
Docket
No. 12,855
Judges
Gseene
Citations
71 P. 25066 Kan. 961903 Kan. LEXIS 11
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. Action eor Battery — Limitation. An action to recover damages for carelessly or negligently shooting another is an action for a battery and is barred in one year.
Summary
Error from Labette district court; Thomas J. Flannelly, 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 — Gseene

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by Gseene, J. :

On the night of March 9, 1898, a robbery was committed at the city of Oswego. The citizens, among whom was the plaintiff in error, started in search for the robbers. W. A. Disch, who was then under-sheriff to A. F. Edwards, joined the posse. In the darkness he met Byrum and two other parties, and each, apprehensive that the other was the robber, fired shots. Byrum received a wound through his lungs from which he suffered greatly.

On March 8, 1900, Byrum brought this action against A. F. Edwards, as sheriff, and his bondsmen, to recover damages for the injuries sustained because of the negligent shooting of him by his under-sheriff. The cause of action, if any ever existed, was barred within one year after the injury. Subdivision 4 of section 4446, General Statutes of 1901, reads:

“Within one year: An action for libel, slander, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or false imprisonment ; an action upon a statute for penalty or forfeiture, except whére the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation.”

See Laurent v. Bernier, 1 Kan. 428 .

There are no allegations in the petition tolling the statute.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1936: 11957: 12007: 12024: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baska v. Scherzer156 P.3d 617 (Kan. 2007)
  2. Murray v. Modoc State Bank313 P.2d 304 (Kan. 1957)
  3. Unruh v. City of Wichita540 P.3d 1002 (Kan. 2024)
  4. Hackenberger v. Travelers Mutual Casualty Co.62 P.2d 545 (Kan. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Unruh v. City of Wichita540 P.3d 1002 (Kan. 2024)
  2. Baska v. Scherzer156 P.3d 617 (Kan. 2007)
  3. Murray v. Modoc State Bank313 P.2d 304 (Kan. 1957)
  4. Hackenberger v. Travelers Mutual Casualty Co.62 P.2d 545 (Kan. 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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Laurent v. Bernier, 1 Kan. 428 (1863) 4

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