Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Citations

• 95 Kan. 353
• 148 P. 648
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 219

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Condemnation Proceedings — Value of Land, — Evidence of Assessor Competent. A judgment will not be reversed because an assessor testifies that he assessed the real estate in controversy at certain valuations, instead of being asked to give his opinion as to the value of the real estate.</p> <p>2. Same — Excluded Evidence — Not Produced on Motion for New Trial. Error in the exclusion of evidence will not be considered when that evidence is not produced on the hearing of the motion for a new trial.</p> <p>3. Same — Instruction Relative to Value of Land Not Erroneous. When the value of land, arising out of condemnation proceedings, is in issue, an instruction which permits the jury to take into consideration “everything that tends to make' the property more valuable or less valuable” is not erroneous.</p> <p>4. Same — No Error in Court’s Instructions. A judgment will not be reversed because of complaint that the court did not properly, correctly and fully instruct the jury, where the instructions given correctly stated the law and no request was made for other or additional instructions.</p> <p>5. SAME — No “Quotient Verdict.” A judgment will not be reversed because the jury resorted to the process of addition and division, without any agreement that the result of such addition and division should be the verdict, where the jury afterwards deliberated further and agreed upon a verdict.</p> <p>6. Same — Conduct of Jury — No Prejudicial Error Shown. Before a judgment will be reversed because of misconduct of part of the jurors in making statements in the jury room, based on the knowledge of such jurors outside the evidence, where upon the whole record it appears that substantial justice has been done, it must affirmatively appear that the substantial rights of the party complaining have been prejudiced thereby.</p> <p>7. Same — Evidence—Photograph. It is not an abuse of discretion to admit a photograph of land in evidence where the valu