페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

tiff. On final hearing, the chancellor adjudg. SCOTT V. KIRTLEY.

ed that defendant was not entitled to a lien (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Nov. 16, 1915.) on the property, and judgment was entered 1. JURY Ow13_RIGHT TO TRIAL BY-EQUITA- accordingly. Defendant appeals. BLE ACTION.

[1, 2] Defendant's chief complaint is that In an action by the owner to cancel a lien the trial court erred in refusing to transfer which defendant contractor was attempting to assert on a house he had repaired, the owner the case for trial by

the case for trial by a jury of the disputed claiming that the work of reconstruction had questions of fact. This precise question was been defectively done, damaging him, the con- before this court in the case of Carder & Valtractor was entitled to a jury trial on the issue as to whether or not there was anything due landingham v. Weisenburgh, 95 Ky. 135, 23 him under the contract, since, as his right of S. W. 964, 15 Ky. Law Rep. 497. There action did not depend altogether on the mechan- Weisenburgh, a contractor who had repaired ic's lien statute, he having an independent cause of action arising out of his contract with the and remodeled a flouring mill belonging to owner, he had the right to a jury trial at com appellants, sought to enforce a lien on the mon law.

mill for the contract price. Appellants ad[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Jury, Cent. mitted the contract, but claimed that the Dig. $$ 35–83; Dec. Dig. Om 13.]

work was not done in a workmanlike manner, 2. APPEAL AND ERROR_Om685—PREJUDICIAL and asked damages in consequence. Appel

ERROR-REFUSAL OF JURY TRIAL IN EQUI-
TABLE ACTION.

lants asked that the court transfer the legal Wherever, in an equitable action between issues to the common law docket to be tried an original contractor and the owner, involving by a jury. such a legal issue as whether or not there was the case tried by the court. On appeal to

The motion was overruled, and anything due the contractor under his contract, the record shows there was sufficient evidence to this court the court held that the enforcetake the case to the jury, the refusal of a jury ment of the lien on the mill property dependtrial to the contractor was prejudicial error, ed on whether or not there was anything due but where the evidence is not in the record, it cannot be said that it was sufficient to raise under the contract, and that the latter quesa question for a jury and hence that it was prej- tion was an issue of fact properly triable by udicial error to deny a jury trial.

a jury. In discussing the question the court [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and

said: Error, Cent. Dig. § 2891; Dec. Dig. Om685.]

"The Constitution of this state guarantees Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton Coun- the right of jury trial. This means a trial acty, Criminal, Common Law, and Equity Di-cording to the course of the common law, and vision.

secures the right only in cases where a jury Action by J. H. Kirtley against J. W. in cases of purely equitable cognizance a trial

trial was customarily used at common law; but Scott. Judgment for plaintiff, and defend-by jury is not a matter of right, but it is adant appeals. Affirmed.

dressed to the discretion of the chancellor. The

right of trial by jury, as secured to the citizen Stephens L. Blakely and Samuel W. Adams, by the Constitution of the state, cannot be takboth of Covington, for appellant. A. E. en away or placed at the discretion of the chan

cellor by converting a legal right into an equita: Stricklett, of Covington, for appellee.

ble one, or by giving the chancellor an exclusive

right to try legal issues, because there is some CLAY, C. J. W. Scott, a contractor, con- equitable right that arises out of the establishtracted with J. H. Kirtley, the owner, to re- the right of trial by jury. That right must re

ment of the legal issues, so as to infringe upon model an old house and build an addition main inviolate as a secured constitutional right thereto for the price of $1,890.03. Subse- of the citizen in all trials in which, according quently a few changes were made in the con- to the course of the common law, the right to a tract, which increased the contract price.

trial by jury exists." Kirtley made certain payments on the con- In the case under consideration, Scott was tract. Scott, claiming a balance due under not entitled to a lien unless there was a balthe contract of $456.98, filed a statement of ance due under the contract. Whether or not mechanic's lien in the Kenton county clerk's there was a balance due was, under the rule office. Charging that the work of construc- above announced, properly triable by a jury. tion was defectively done, and that by rea- The case of Rieger et al. v. Schulte & Eicher son thereof the plaintiff had been damaged et al., 151 Ky. 129, 151 S. W. 395, when propin the sum of $600, and that there was noth- erly understood, does not announce a coning due defendant under the contract, plain- | trary doctrine. There the lien claimants tiff brought this action to cancel the lien were subcontractors. They had no contract which defendant was attempting to assert with the owner. There only rights were unon the property. Defendant filed an answer der and by virtue of the mechanics' lien statand counterclaim, denying the allegations of ute. Having no rights at common law, no the petition and seeking the enforcement of right of trial by jury as to the disputed ishis lien. The allegations of the petition and sues of fact existed at the common law. It counterclaim were denied by reply. There was therefore held that the remedy afforded upon defendant moved for a jury trial as to by the mechanics' lien statute, upon which the disputed issues of fact. The motion was their cause of action was solely based, was overruled. The case was then referred to the exclusive, and that they were not entitled to commissioner, who reported in favor of plain-J a trial by a jury of the disputed issues of

fact. It is apparent, however, that in the and awarded to the wife the care and cuscase of an original contractor a different rule tody of the two infant children. The husprevails. His right of action does not de- band was directed to pay $50 in quarterly pend altogether on the statute. He has an payments to her for support of the children, independent cause of action arising out of being one year's allowance, and the case was his contract. On the question whether or reserved for further orders on the question not there was anything due under his con- of allowance after that period. The husband tract, he had the right to a jury trial at com- was directed also to pay the costs of the mon law. The mere fact that the statute action, including a fee of $25 to her attorney. gives him an additional right does not de- The court refused to allow alimony to the prive him of the right to a jury trial, which wife. We approve of the chancellor's judgexisted at common law. We therefore con- ment on all questions except alimony, and clude that in every case between the original the form of the order as to support for the contractor and the owner, involving such dis- children. We are of opinion that alimony puted legal issues as arise for decision in in some amount should have been allowed to this case, either party has the right to have her. She has no estate, was not in fault, them tried by a jury, and it is prejudicial and at the time of the judgment was under error to refuse such right wherever the rec-21 years of age. The children are twins, and ord shows that there was sufficient evidence are now about 3 years old. She is entitled to take the case to the jury. The case of to help from her husband for the support of Rieger et al. v. Schulte & Eicher et al., herself as well as her children. The hussupra, in so far as it conflicts with this view, band is young and strong, and is able and is hereby overruled. The difficulty in the capable of supporting the mother and chilpresent case, however, arises out of the fact dren. His daily earnings constitute his esthat the evidence heard below is not in the tate, but lack of other means will not justirecord. The burden is always on the appel- fy a failure to award alimony. lant to show that he has been prejudiced by The allowance of $50 per annum for the an erroneous ruling of the trial court. In the children should be in the form of a standabsence of the evidence, we are unable to ing order, and the payments continue until say that there was sufficient evidence to take such time as the court may otherwise dithe case to the jury, or that the appellant rect, if circumstances and conditions SO has been prejudiced by the refusal of the change as to demand a modification. The trial court to award him a jury trial.

court will allow alimony to the wife in the Judgment affirmed.

sum of $150 per year, payable quarterly.

Judgment is reversed, with directions to

proceed as herein indicated. GOFF v. GOF. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Nov. 16, 1915.)

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. FEENEY. DIVORCE 240 ALIMONY-ALLOWANCE.

Where a wife suing for divorce established (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Nov. 16, her charges of abandonment and cruel treat

1915.) ment, and there was no proof upon the counter- 1. PLEADING 369-ELECTION-PARTIES. claim for a divorce on the ground of adultery, and she was then under 21, and was awarded sparks from a locomotive, the plaintiff was

In an action for damages by fire caused by the custody of two small children and had no properly not required to elect as to whether she estate, she was entitled, in addition to the allow-would prosecute the company owning the roadance for their support, to alimony in the sum bed or the company running trains thereon, of $150 per year out of the husband's earnings. since the former was liable for the negligence,

[Ed._Note. For other cases, see Divorce, not only of its own servants, but also for the Cent. Dig. 88 675-678, 680; Dec. Dig. Om 240.] negligence of servants of the other company. Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Pleading,

Omw ] Suit for divorce by Hester Goff against Cent. Dig. $$ 1199–1209; Dec. Dig. 369.

– FIRES — Rudolph Goff, with counterclaim for divorce. 12. RAILROADS Ow484 — OPERATION

QUESTION OF FACT. Decree for plaintiff, without alimony, and In an action for the burning of a barn she appeals. Reversed, with directions. by sparks from defendant's locomotive, evidence J. S. Cline, of Pikeville, for appellant. to authorize the submission of defendant's neg

that such sparks caused the fire held sufficient Roscoe Vanover, of Pikeville, for appellee. ligence to the jury.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Railroads, NUNN, J. Appellant, the wife, sued her Cent. Dig. $$ 1740–1746; Dec. Dig. Om484.] husband, the appellee, for divorce and ali- 3. RAILROADS 479 – OPERATION - FIRES -

EVIDENCE. mony on the grounds of abandonment and

In an action for the destruction of a barn cruel treatment. He answered with a coun- by fire, set by sparks from defendant's locoterclaim for divorce on the ground of adul- motive, alleged to be due to the negligent opertery. The proof sustained her charge of ation of the train, evidence showing a defecabandonment and cruelty. There was no it was not pleaded.

tive spark arrester was not inadmissible because proof in support of his charge of adultery. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Railroads, The court so held, and granted a divorce, Cent. Dig. SS 1706–1708; Dec. Dig. Ow479.]

[ocr errors]

4. APPEAL AND ERROR O 1070-PREJUDICIAL, merated, nothing further need be said conERROR-VERDICT AND FINDINGS.

cerning it. In an action for destruction of a barn by fire from sparks from a locomotive, failure of

At the point where the track passed appelthe jury to say whether the company owning the lee's barn there is a decided upgrade going road or the company operating a train thereon eastwardly towards Lexington, and it is constarted the fire was not prejudicial, where the tended that the fire was caused by one of the company owning the road was liable for the nego three freight trains while ascending this ligence of the company operating the train.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and grade. Error, Cent. Dig. 88 4231-4233; Dec. Dig. Om [1] 1. Appellant first insists that the trial 1070.j

court erred in refusing to require the appelAppeal from Circuit Court, Scott County. lee to elect against which defendant she

Action by Ellen Feeney against the Louis- would prosecute her suit; and, it insists that ville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judg- the case of the Louisville & Nashville Railment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.road Co. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 108 Affirmed.

Ky. 113, 55 S. W. 918, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 1544,

is conclusive of this question. A reading of Emmett M. Dickson, of Paris, and Benja- that case, however, fails to convince us of min D. Warfield, of Louisville, for appellant. that fact. And, in view of appellant's ownerJames Bradley and B. M. Lee, both of ship of the track used by the trains of both Georgetown, for appellee.

companies in this case, it becomes unneces.

sary to discuss the question of pleading sugMILLER, C. J. The appellee, Ellen Feeney, sued the Louisville & Nashville Rail- liable for the negligence, not only of its own

gested by appellant, since the appellant was road Company and the Chesapeake & Ohio servants and employés, but also for the negRailway Company, jointly, for damages for servants and employés, but also for the neg. the burning of her barn at Payne's Depot, in ligence of the servants and employés of the

Chesapeake Company. Scott county, on December 16, 1912. The pe

In O'Bannion's Adm'r v. Southern Railtition alleges that the barn was set on fire by sparks emitted from an engine belonging way in Ky., 110 S. W. 329, 33 Ky. Law Rep. to one of the defendants, but that plaintiff 436, we passed upon the question here raised, did not know which company owned the en

saying: gine that caused the fire, and that the trains licensed the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas

"The appellee railroad corporation having of both companies used appellant's railway Pacific Railway Company to run its cars over track where the fire occurred. Both defend its line, it is as responsible for whatever acciants moved the court to require the plain-dent took place in the operation of the train as tiff to elect which of the defendants she far as the responsibility of the appellee for the

, would sue, but the court overruled both mo injury involved here is concerned, we will treat tions. The issues were made, and upon a the case as if the accident was occasioned by one trial in October, 1913, the jury returned of its own trains. McCabe's Adm'r v. Maysa verdict against both defendants, for $500; W. 1054, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 2328]; Louisville

ville & B. S. R. R. Co., etc., 112 Ky. 361 [66 S. but, upon motions of both defendants, and & Nashville R. Čo. v. Breeden's Adm'r, 111 Ky. the plaintiff, a new trial was granted. At a 729 [64 S. W. 667, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1021, second trial, held in May, 1914, the court

1763].” peremptorily instructed the jury to find for In overruling the motion to require the the Chesapeake Company; and, the case hav- plaintiff to elect, the trial court was clearing been submitted to the jury as against ly right. the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Com- [2] 2. Appellant next insists that there was pany, the jury returned a verdict against it no evidence that any one of the three freight for $659.46. This appeal is by that com- trains in question emitted any sparks, and pany.

consequently that its motion for a directed The evidence shows that shortly before verdict should have prevailed. There had plaintiff's barn was discovered to be on fire, been no fire in the barn during that day, or, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, four trains so far as the evidence shows, for several passed the barn. The first was appellant's days. The last person in the barn on the passenger train, going west from Lexington day of the fire closed the barn doors after to Louisville; the second was appellant's throwing in a load of corn; and, when he freight train, going east from Louisville to left the barn there was no fire visible, either Lexington; the third was the first section of in or about it. Appellee's barn was situatthe Chesapeake Company's freight train No. ed about 150 feet north of the track, and the 92, going east from Louisville to Lexington; wind was blowing from the southeast. In and the fourth was the second section of said the southeast end of the barn there was a train No. 92, going in the same direction. window that was left open. This window The petition, however, alleges that the faced the railroad track, and there was storfire was caused by an east-bound train; and, ed in the loft of the barn into which this as no claim is made, by either party to this window opened several tons of sheaf oats. appeal, that the fire was caused by the ap- There was also some straw in the stalls bepellant's passenger train first above enu- low the loft. The proof shows that the three freight trains passed the barn shortly be- | the case at bar is stronger for the plaintiff fore the fire was discovered, and that in than the cases just cited, since at least one passing this barn shortly before the day witness testified that she saw sparks emitof the fire they had set fire to the grass and ted by the engine shortly before the fire. fencing along the right of way. It further And, in the McGeoughey Case, supra, the appears from the proof that the fire occur- property destroyed by the fire was 260 feet red on December 16, 1912, about 4 o'clock in from the company's right of way. the afternoon; that it was a gloomy and In our opinion, the evidence was sufficient dark afternoon; that Miss Kate Feeney, the to authorize a submission of the case to the daughter of appellee, saw sparks emitted in jury upon the issue of appellant's negligence great quantities from one of these engines in the operation of its trains. as it ascended the grade; that Trowbridge, [3] 3. Appellant further insists that the a neighbor, who was stripping tobacco in his petition did not allege there was any defect barn near the track and near Mrs. Feeney's in the engine, or in the spark arrester therebarn, had his attention called to these trains of; and as it only charged negligence in the by the unusual puffing and laboring of the operation and management of the trains, engines in ascending the grade; that he went the proof which tended to show a defective to a crack in the barn and looked out to see spark arrester did not sustain the charge of what was the trouble; and that the engine negligent, operation. It is a general rule of was making such an effort to make the grade pleading that in alleging an injury to any that he thought something was wrong with kind of property it will ordinarily be suffithe train. The unusual puffing and laboring cient to state, in general terms, that it was of the engine was also noticed by Branham, an- caused by the negligence or carelessness of other neighbor; and all the witnesses who saw the defendant or his servants, without allegthe fire testified that it occurred between 5 ing all the circumstances necessary to show and 15 minutes after the engines had passed. negligence; but where the petition specifies

The facts of this case make it very like the acts of negligence relied upon, the plainI. C. R. R. Co. v. Scheible, 162 Ky. 471, 172 tiff will be confined, in his proof, to the acts S. W. 910, where we said:

specified, and cannot recover by showing a “There is no direct evidence that sparks from different act of negligence. Here the allegathe engine of the train that passed a few min- tion of negligence is general in so far as it utes before the fire was discovered set the house relates to the operation of the train; and on fire, but direct evidence is not indispensable surely the charge that the train was so negstantial evidence is equally as sufficient as di- ligently operated as to set fire to appellee's rect evidence would be when the circumstantial barn was sufficient to permit the plaintiff evidence connects the sparks from the passing to show that the fire was caused by sparks train with the fire. It would be an exceedingly from appellant's engine. It was not necesdifficult, and in many cases an impossible thing, for the owner of property destroyed by fire to sary for the pleader to allege that the engine show by direct and positive evidence that the was defective in any particular respect, if its fire was started by sparks from a passing en operation constituted negligence. Southern gine. In the nighttime live sparks falling from engines are very discernible, but in the daytime Ry. v. Hanna, 21 Ky. Law Rep. 850, 53 S. W. live sparks, although of sufficient heat to set fire 1; Southern Ry. V. McGeoughey, 31 Ky. Law to dry material, cannot well be seen by the nak- Rep. 291, 102 S. W. 270. ed eye as they come from the smokestack of the

[4] 4. Finally, it is contended that the engine, and yet in many cases, including this one, circumstantial evidence leaves little room court erred in not requiring the jury to obey for doubt as to the origin of the fire. Several instruction No. 8, given by the court upon witnesses, who were in or about the house at its own motion, which required the jury to all times during the morning of the fire and pre: say in their verdict whether the fire was ceding it, testified very clearly and directly and without contradiction that there was no fire in started from a spark from the engine of the or about the house from which the fire that Chesapeake Company, or from one of the apdestroyed it could have been started. Accept- pellant's engines. The defendants did not ing as true the statements of these witnesses, as file pleadings against each other, or request the jury had a right to do, and as we may well assume they did, it is apparent that the fire the jury to fix the responsibility as between must have originated from some outside source, them. On the contrary, they elected to make and under the evidence there was only one their fight jointly; and, as the appellant source from which it could have started, and owned the track over which the Chesapeake that was this passing engine.”

Company operated its trains, the appellant See, also, Southern Ry. v. Hanna, 21 Ky. was liable to the appellee for the negligence Law Rep. 850, 53 S. W. 1, C., N. 0. & T. of either defendant. Under these circumP. R. R. Co. v. Falconer, 30 Ky. Law Rep. stances, we fail to see how the jury's fail152, 97 S. W. 727, Southern Ry. v. Mc-ure to obey the instruction by saying which Geoughey, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 291, 102 S. W. defendant set fire to the barn, even though 270, C. & O. R. Co. v. Preston, 143 Ky. 189, it were possible for it to do so, could preju136 S. W. 203, and C. & 0. Ry. Co. v. Snyd- dice the appellant. er, 164 Ky. 433, 175 S. W. 640, holding that

We find no error, either substantial or circumstantial evidence of this character is otherwise, in the record.

Company at the time he received the injury IMPERIAL JELLICO COAL CO. v. NEFF. of which he complained; that there never (Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Nov. 16, 1915.) was such a corporation as the Imperial Coal 1. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS O121-RUNNING Company, and the affiant was not an officer OF STATUTE--FILING OF PETITION.

or agent of the Imperial Coal CompanyUnder Civ. Code Prac. § 134, declaring that “that John Morgan was, on the 18th day of Authe court may, at any time and on such terms as gust, 1913, and is now, the president of the may be proper, permit a pleading to be amend. Imperial Jellico Coal Company, and w. B. ed by adding or striking out the name of a Wyatt was on said date and is now the vice

W. party, or by correcting a mistake in the name president of the Imperial Jellico Coal Company,

, of a party, a petition, in an action against a and J. C. Hoskins was and is now the secrecorporation, which improperly named the cor; tary treasurer and general manager of the Imporation, may be corrected by amendment, and perial Jellico Coal Company; that J. C. Hos such amendment will relate back to and become kins then resided in Whitley county, Ky., and part of the original petition, where the original that John Morgan

and w. B. Wyatt then reservice had been on the corporation's duly con: sided and do now reside in Whitley county, Ky." stituted agent and service of summons on such petition will stop the running of limitations, Thereafter, on September 21st, the court notwithstanding a corporation can have but one quashed the return on the summons, and a Lame and must be sued by such name.

few days afterwards the plaintiff filed an [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Limitation amended petition, in which it was averred of Actions, Cent. Dig. $8 537-540; Dec. Dig.

that: 121.]

"By oversight and inadvertence on the part of 2. DAMAGES Om 131 - PERSONAL INJURIES

his attorneys the full and correct name of the MEASURE.

An award of $2,000 in favor of an em- defendant was not stated in the petition; that ployé of a coal company who was shocked by the true defendant and the real and correct an electric wire carrying 250 volts is excessive, name of the defendant was the Imperial Jellico where he was able to return to work on the Coal Company, and that is the company and deday of the accident and the next two days on fendant whose acts, negligence and carelessness which the mine was operated; medical testi- caused the injuries set forth in the petition, mony as to a subsequent illness being that it and is and was the defendant that he directed

to be sued and intended to have sued herein, was caused by rheumatism and malaria. [Ed. Note. For other cases. see Damages, and his petition herein merely

omitted the word -| Cent. Dig. $$ 357-367, 370; Dec. Dig. em 131.) Jellico' from the name and style of said com

Om ]

pany." Appeal from Circuit Court, Whitley County. And he asked that the petition be corrected

Action by Charles Neff against the Impe- and the case proceed as if the correct name rial Jellico Coal Company. From a judgment of the defendant had been set forth in the for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed petition. On the same day a summons was

. and remanded.

issued against the Imperial Jellico Coal ComTye, Siler & Gatliff, of Williamsburg, for pany and executed on December 6, 1913, on appellant. S. H. Kash, of Corbin, B. B. Gold- “Fred Perkins, bookkeeper of the company." en, of Barbourville, Stephens & Steely, of After this an answer was filed by the ImpeWilliamsburg, and W. R. Lay, of Barbour- rial Jellico Coal Company, in which, after ville, for appellee.

controverting the allegations of the original

petition, and pleading assumed risk and conCARROLL, J. On July 31, 1913, the appel- tributory negligence, in a separate paragraph lee, Neff, brought this suit in the Whitley cir- it pleaded and relied on the one-year statute cuit court against the Imperial Coal Com- of limitation, averring that the amended pepany, to recover damages for personal in-tition making it a party was not filed until juries alleged to have been sustained by him more than one year after the cause of action on September 6, 1912, on account of the neg- accrued. To the paragraph pleading the statligence and carelessness of the coal company. ute of limitation, a demurrer was sustained. Summons on this petition was issued against Thereupon the case went to trial, with the the Imperial Coal Company, and on August result that there was a verdict and judgment 18, 1913, the sheriff made this return on the in favor of the appellee against the Imperial summons:

Jellico Coal Company for $2,000, and on this "Executed on the Imperial Jellico Coal Company, August 18, 1913, by giving a copy of appeal a reversal of that judgment is sought. same to R. F. Perkins, bookkeeper of said com

[1] The first ground relied on for reversal pany."

is that the action against the Imperial JelliOn September 7, 1913, the Imperial Jellico co Coal Company was not commenced until Coal Company entered its appearance for the the amended petition was filed on November purpose only of quashing the return on the 25, 1913, more than one year after the cause summons, and in support of this motion flled of action set up in the petition accrued, and the affidavit of R. F. Perkins, stating that at a time when the action was barred by the the Imperial Jellico Coal Company was a cor-statute, and therefore the plea of limitaporation created by the laws of Kentucky, tion, to which a demurrer was sustained, preand that the summons against the Imperial sented a complete defense to the cause of Coal Company was executed on R. F. Perkins action. It will be observed that the sumas the bookkeeper of the Imperial Jellico mons on the amended petition against the Coal Company; that Neff was working for Imperial Jellico Coal Company was executed and an employé of the Imperial Jellico Coal | on "Tred Perkins, bookkeeper,” and in view

[ocr errors]
« 이전계속 »