Koepp v. Consolidated Electric Light & Power Co.
William F. Koepp v. The Consolidated Electric Light and Power Company
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.
Per Ouriam:
This case was once decided adversely to plaintiff in error. ( 64 Kan. 735 , 68 Pac. 608 .) A judgment in his favor was reversed and a new trial granted, for the reason that the negligence alleged and proved was not the proximate cause of the injury. After the case was remanded, plaintiff below filed a third amended petition, His counsel says in his brief:
“The third amended petition of the plaintiff merely enlarged the cause of action already stated in the second amended petition by inserting other allegations material to the case. . . . The cause of action in both petitions is the same.”
Counsel further states that the third amended petition “is a new version of an old story.” A general demurrer was sustained to this pleading, of which plaintiff below complains.
The proceeding in error impresses us as an attempt to obtain a rehearing in the original case. Counsel for plaintiff in error says:
“The third amended petition, like the second, merely charged common negligence, and the negligence in both cases was charged to be the crossing of its uninsulated electric-light wires with uninsulated telephone wires of Radford.”
The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.