Wilson v. Burlington & Missouri River R. R.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Union District Court NEW TRIAD : CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. Action to recover damage for the loss of a horse killed by a train upon "defendant’s road. Twocounts in the petition set out the grounds of recovery. The first count claims recovery, because the defendant’s road was not fenced where the.horse was killed; the s'econd, on the ground that the injury was done, through carelessness of defendant’s servants. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Union District Court NEW TRIAD : CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. Action to recover damage for the loss of a horse killed by a train upon "defendant’s road. Twocounts in the petition set out the grounds of recovery. The first count claims recovery, because the defendant’s road was not fenced where the.horse was killed; the s'econd, on the ground that the injury was done, through carelessness of defendant’s servants. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Beck, Ch. J.
— The only ground, of objection made by defendant’s counsel to the judgment is, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to *592tlie evidence. No complaint is made of the rulings by the court upon the law of the case.
The evidence is conflicting upon the facts of the case, given in evidence for the purpose of establishing negligence on the part of those operating the train which ran over plaintiff’s horse. Plaintiff’s witnesses testify that the rate of speed, at the time the engine struck the horse, was from twelve to fourteen miles an hour; defendant’s witnesses assert that it was…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Artz v. C., R. I. & P. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876