Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley

Ohio Court of Appeals

Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley

153 N.E. 86, 21 Ohio App. 88, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 394, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 234

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1925

Docket73

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 153 N.E. 86 (Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley, 153 N.E. 86, 21 Ohio App. 88, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 394, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 234 (Ohio Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Minnie Vogeley instituted this action against the Detroit and Ironton Rd. Co. in the Fulton Common Pleas, for the purpose of recovering for damages sustained by her machine. It seems that she was passing one of the company’s crossings and there happened to be a plank missing, so that a deep hole between the tracks was the result. The front wheels of the machine dropped into. the excavation, tnd the engine hit the nearer rail, and was considerably damaged. The company, however, did not cross-examine Vogeley, nor was evidence offered after she rested her case. Judgment in the lower court was in favor of Vog-eley.

Eroor was prosecuted by the company and it contended that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence by allowing Vog-eley to testify as to the value of her own car. It was claimed that the court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor, for the reason that the evidence did not tend to show that any duty rested upon the company to keep the crossing in repair. It was also claimed the lower court erred in striking out the second defense of the answer and the interrogatories attached to the answer.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. There was no error in allowing Vogeley to testify as to the value of her car, for as a general rule, the owner of property has, by reason of that fact, a sufficient knowledge of its value to be qualified to testify regarding it.

2. The undisputed evidence in the case was that the crossing was that of the company and the inference follows from the undisputed evidence that the railroad was being operated by the company.

3. Under the undisputed evidence, the statement of the lower court that the company admitted in its answer that which was averred in Vogeley’s petition, in the courts charge, was not prejudicial error.

4.Interrogatories pertain wholely to the matter averred in the second defense and if the court was warranted in striking out the second defense it was also warranted in striking out the interrogatories.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAMS, J.

Minnie Vogeley instituted this action against the Detroit and Ironton Rd. Co. in the Fulton Common Pleas, for the purpose of recovering for damages sustained by her machine. It seems that she was passing one of the company’s crossings and there happened to be a plank missing, so that a deep hole between the tracks was the result. The front wheels of the machine dropped into. the excavation, tnd the engine hit the nearer rail, and was considerably damaged. The company, however, did not cross-examine Vogeley, nor was evidence offered after she rested her case. Judgment in the lower court was in favor of Vog-eley.

Eroor was prosecuted by the company and it contended that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence by allowing Vog-eley to testify as to the value of her own car. It was claimed that the court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor, for the reason that the evidence did not tend to show that any duty rested upon the company to keep the crossing in repair. It was also claimed the lower court erred in striking out the second defense of the answer and the interrogatories attached to the answer.

The Court of Appeals held:

1. There was no error in allowing Vogeley to testify as to the value of her car, for as a general rule, the owner of property has, by reason of that fact, a sufficient knowledge of its value to be qualified to testify regarding it.

2. The undisputed evidence in the case was that the crossing was that of the company and the inference follows from the undisputed evidence that the railroad was being operated by the company.

3. Under the undisputed evidence, the statement of the lower court that the company admitted in its answer that which was averred in Vogeley’s petition, in the courts charge, was not prejudicial error.

4.Interrogatories pertain wholely to the matter averred in the second defense and if the court was warranted in striking out the second defense it was also warranted in striking out the interrogatories.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 N.E. 86, 21 Ohio App. 88, 3 Ohio Law. Abs. 394, 1925 Ohio App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/detroit-ironton-rd-co-v-vogeley-ohioctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack