Berry v. Pusey
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Oáse 32 — ORDINARY— APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court should have sustained appellant’s motion for a nonsuit. 2. The facts iu no sense authorize a verdict against appellant.
Read the full summary
Oáse 32 — ORDINARY— APPEAL PROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The court should have sustained appellant’s motion for a nonsuit. 2. The facts iu no sense authorize a verdict against appellant. (Hautbi v. Roberts, 3 J. J. Mar., 298; Parker v. Jenkins, 3 Bush, 587; Mc-Kibben v. Baker, 1 B. M., 122.) 3. The court erred in giving the instructions to the jury. -4. The verdict of the jury was not signed when delivered. 5. Material questions propounded by the court to the jury were not: answered. 1. The verdict of the jury is amply sustained by the proof. 2, Although the verdict was unsigned when first…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is evident from the history of this case, as detailed by the witnesses, that the appellant, either for himself or those-he was representing, undertook to have young Bayard taken-, care of and treated by medical skill on account of the injury he had received by reason of the accident occurring on the: boat, of which the appellant was captain.
*167This injury seems to have been the result of negligence-on the part of the owners of the boat or its employés, and the claim of Bayard for dámages afterwards compromised;: but whether so or not, the young…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Stanard v. Sampson Et Ux.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Dunlap v. Raywood Rice Canal & Milling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Gurley v. O'DwyerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Hart v. Village of WyndmereNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Harris v. HartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.