McKinley-Winter Livestock Commission Co. v. Fletcher

Supreme Court of Kansas

McKinley-Winter Livestock Commission Co. v. Fletcher

354 P.2d 325, 187 Kan. 1, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 14, 1960

DocketNo. 41,512

StatusPublished

This text of 354 P.2d 325 (McKinley-Winter Livestock Commission Co. v. Fletcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKinley-Winter Livestock Commission Co. v. Fletcher, 354 P.2d 325, 187 Kan. 1, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 392 (kan 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

In our original opinion we held the district court erred in setting aside special question No. 2 and the jury’s answer thereto and reversed the judgment entered upon the general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and ordered that the defendant be granted a new trial. The defendant filed á petition for rehearing and the cause was reargued upon the sole question whether this court should enter judgment for the defendant.

We will not again set forth the pleadings of the parties nor summarize the evidence except to say that as a result of the pleadings [2]*2and a pre-trial conference the only factual issue was whether the defendant and his partner, Ray Holder, agreed to be responsible for, or “make good,” any bad checks received from purchasers at the pony auction sale held in the plaintiff’s sale barn. The district court submitted three special questions to the jury. Those questions and the jury’s answers appear at page 640 of our original opinion and are incorporated in this opinion by reference. Special question No. 3 and its answer are not here involved.

The defendant argues that special questions Nos. 1 and 2 and their answers were not inconsistent with each other and that since the principal issue in the lawsuit was contained in special question No. 2, that is, whether the defendant agreed to “make good” any bad checks received during the auction sale, which was in effect answered by the jury in favor of the defendant, this court should order judgment in his favor notwithstanding that the general verdict was in favor of the plaintiff.

It is unnecessary to make an extended discussion of the appellant’s contention. It is sufficient to say that a majority of the court is convinced that our original opinion is correct and that the state of this record requires the granting of a new trial. The original decision of December 12, 1959, reversing the district court and granting the defendant a new trial is adhered to.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

In our original opinion we held the district court erred in setting aside special question No. 2 and the jury’s answer thereto and reversed the judgment entered upon the general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and ordered that the defendant be granted a new trial. The defendant filed á petition for rehearing and the cause was reargued upon the sole question whether this court should enter judgment for the defendant.

We will not again set forth the pleadings of the parties nor summarize the evidence except to say that as a result of the pleadings [2]*2and a pre-trial conference the only factual issue was whether the defendant and his partner, Ray Holder, agreed to be responsible for, or “make good,” any bad checks received from purchasers at the pony auction sale held in the plaintiff’s sale barn. The district court submitted three special questions to the jury. Those questions and the jury’s answers appear at page 640 of our original opinion and are incorporated in this opinion by reference. Special question No. 3 and its answer are not here involved.

The defendant argues that special questions Nos. 1 and 2 and their answers were not inconsistent with each other and that since the principal issue in the lawsuit was contained in special question No. 2, that is, whether the defendant agreed to “make good” any bad checks received during the auction sale, which was in effect answered by the jury in favor of the defendant, this court should order judgment in his favor notwithstanding that the general verdict was in favor of the plaintiff.

It is unnecessary to make an extended discussion of the appellant’s contention. It is sufficient to say that a majority of the court is convinced that our original opinion is correct and that the state of this record requires the granting of a new trial. The original decision of December 12, 1959, reversing the district court and granting the defendant a new trial is adhered to.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 P.2d 325, 187 Kan. 1, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinley-winter-livestock-commission-co-v-fletcher-kan-1960.