Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward

Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward

43 S.W. 954, 1 Indian Terr. 670, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 92

CourtCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

DecidedJanuary 8, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 43 S.W. 954 (Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward, 43 S.W. 954, 1 Indian Terr. 670, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 92 (Conn. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

( after stating the facts). The evidence in this case shows the bull was killed by an engine or train in the night, and that, at the point where he was killed, the track was clear for a distance of 50 feet on each side of the track, and that the bull could have been seen for a distance from a quarter to one-half of a mile by the engineer had he been on the lookout. These circumstances tended strongly to show negligence, and from which we think the jury could rightfully infer negligence. We think this evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury, and under the charge of the court, which, in our opinion, states the law correctly, the jury were justified in returning a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants introduced no evidence whatever, and, if there were any circumstances in its favor, the information was all with them. “It is a well-settled rule of evidence that when the circumstances in proof tend to fix a liability on a party who has it in his [674]*674power to offer evidence of all the facts as they existed, and rebut the inferences which the circumstances in proof tend to establish, and he fails to offer such proof, the natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would support, the inferences against him, and the jury is justified in acting upon that conclusion.” Railway Co. vs Ellis, 10 U. S. App. 643, 4 C. C. A. 454, and 54 Fed. 481. All the questions set forth in the specifications of error have been fully decided in the United States court of appeals in the foregoing cited case, and in the following cases: Railway Co. vs Johnson, 10 U. S. App. 629, 4 C. C. A. 447, and 54 Fed. 474; Railway Co. vs Washington, 4 U. S. App. 121, 1 C. C. A, 286, and 49 Fed. 347; Railway Co. vs Elledge, 4 U. S. App. 136, 1 C. C. A. 295, and 49 Fed. 356. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Party having evidence and failing to produce It. Inference. Springer, C. J., and Clayton and Thomas, JJ., concur.

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

Townsend, J.

( after stating the facts). The evidence in this case shows the bull was killed by an engine or train in the night, and that, at the point where he was killed, the track was clear for a distance of 50 feet on each side of the track, and that the bull could have been seen for a distance from a quarter to one-half of a mile by the engineer had he been on the lookout. These circumstances tended strongly to show negligence, and from which we think the jury could rightfully infer negligence. We think this evidence was properly allowed to go to the jury, and under the charge of the court, which, in our opinion, states the law correctly, the jury were justified in returning a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants introduced no evidence whatever, and, if there were any circumstances in its favor, the information was all with them. “It is a well-settled rule of evidence that when the circumstances in proof tend to fix a liability on a party who has it in his [674]*674power to offer evidence of all the facts as they existed, and rebut the inferences which the circumstances in proof tend to establish, and he fails to offer such proof, the natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting, would support, the inferences against him, and the jury is justified in acting upon that conclusion.” Railway Co. vs Ellis, 10 U. S. App. 643, 4 C. C. A. 454, and 54 Fed. 481. All the questions set forth in the specifications of error have been fully decided in the United States court of appeals in the foregoing cited case, and in the following cases: Railway Co. vs Johnson, 10 U. S. App. 629, 4 C. C. A. 447, and 54 Fed. 474; Railway Co. vs Washington, 4 U. S. App. 121, 1 C. C. A, 286, and 49 Fed. 347; Railway Co. vs Elledge, 4 U. S. App. 136, 1 C. C. A. 295, and 49 Fed. 356. The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Party having evidence and failing to produce It. Inference. Springer, C. J., and Clayton and Thomas, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.W. 954, 1 Indian Terr. 670, 1898 Indian Terr. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/missouri-kansas-texas-railway-co-v-ward-ctappindterr-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack