Rogers v. Felton
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case *28 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROJt SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been sustained. The answer in effect admits the negligence and merely denies the damage.
Read the full summary
Case *28 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL FROJt SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been sustained. The answer in effect admits the negligence and merely denies the damage. (.Civil Code, sec. 126; Newman’s Pleading and Practice, p. 511.) 2. The remarks of the court upon the merits of the case, which were made in the presence of the jury, were in effect a peremptory instruction to find for defendant, which was not authorized by the evidence. 1. The answer of appellee denies specifically the careless or negligent killing, which was the only…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG.(delivered’ the opinion of the court.
The app'dlaii-t' sued the appellee, receiver of the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railroad, alleging that the a genii and employes of the road carelessly and negligently ran its cars over and killed two of the appellant’s horses, ,bf the value of $100.
The 4ppellee answered and admitted the killing, but denied that it was done “through either the carelessness or negli/gence of defendant, his agents or servants, and to the danj/age of the plaintiff in the sum of one hundred dollars, or in any other sum.”
o demurrer was filed to this…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Hill v. RaglandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- Donoho v. RawleighCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
- Wigginton's Adm'r v. Louisville Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Mullen & Haynes Co. v. CrispCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- City of Ludlow v. AlbersCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.