Moore v. Cass
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth District Court. The action below was by Cass as plaintiff to recover of Moore the value of a horse hired by him, and claimed by plaintiff to have died in consequence of Moore’s negligence, and his failure to use proper care and skill in the use and feeding of the animal.
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth District Court. The action below was by Cass as plaintiff to recover of Moore the value of a horse hired by him, and claimed by plaintiff to have died in consequence of Moore’s negligence, and his failure to use proper care and skill in the use and feeding of the animal. The action was tried at the November Term 1871. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $75. Moore moved for a new trial, and one of the grounds of the motion was, “Because of abuse of discretion of the court by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial, in this, that the court used…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kingman, C. J.:
It is claimed that the instructions given at the instance of defendant in error (plaintiff below) are not correct; but as there were no exceptions to them, this court will not examine them.
*291„ ,. „ Mm-. 2. instructions; proof. The court refused to give this instruction asked by plaintiff in error: “ The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff in this action to show gross carelessness or negligence on the part of the defendant in the care of the horse.” The action was to recover damages for the death of a hired horse caused by the negligence…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
- Eikmeier v. BennettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
- Coleman v. S. Patti Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1957
- Healer v. InkmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Rly. Co. v. MunkersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.