Kielbach v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.

Citations

• 13 S.D. 629
• 84 N.W. 192
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 196

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the evidence is conflicting, but fairly tends to support a verdict for plaintiff, it will not be disturbed on appeal.</p> <p>2. Where the evidence was conflicting, it was proper to deny defendant’s motion for direction of a verdict.</p> <p>. 3. Any error in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to a question asked was cured by permiting the witness to answer it in another part of his testimony.</p> <p>4. In a.n action to recover for stock killed on a railroad track,, overruling plaintiff’s objections to questions asked the fireman.- on cross-examination, as to his failure to see the animal on the track, was noterror, since the jury could not have been led to believe thereby that it was the duty of the engineer and fireman to keep a lookout for trespassing stock; the court having charged them that such was not the trainmen’s duty, and that the absence of a lookout was not negligence.</p>