Dickinson v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Co.
J. F. Dickinson v. The Kansas City Elevated Railway Company
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.
Per Curiam:
Plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s road, sued to recover damages for personal injuries, but the jury found for the defendant. Two errors are assigned, but neither is good.
The objection to the appointment of a commission of physicians to make a physical examination was not sufficiently specific, and if it had been the court would have been warranted in overruling it. There was power in the court to require the examination. (Ottawa v. Gilliland, 63 Kan. 165 , 65 Pac. 252 .)
The credibility and weight of the testimony were for the jury. There were circumstances shown tending to discredit the plaintiff’s testimony, and evidently the jury did not believe it. We cannot say that they should have done so, or that there are any grounds for a reversal.
The judgment is affirmed. '
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.