Steinbuchel v. Wright

43 Kan. 307
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 43 Kan. 307 (Steinbuchel v. Wright) 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
Steinbuchel v. Wright, 43 Kan. 307 (kan 1890).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This was an action in the court below for slander. The iury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $4,000.

It was alleged in the motion for a new trial, among other things, that the damages allowed were given under the influence of passion or prejudice. In overruling the motion for a new trial the court found that the assessment of the jury beyond the sum of $500 was excessive. Seven-eighths of the verdict was voluntarily remitted by the plaintiff rather than to have a new trial. In view of the action of the trial court, [310]*310and the testimony in the case, we are compelled to say that the damages were so excessive as to show the verdict was given under the influence of passion or prejudice. If seven-eighths of the verdict was rendered under the influence of passion or prejudice, the other one-eighth must also have been rendered under like influence. In such a case the amount of damages should be submitted to the judgment of another jury. (U. P. Rly. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kas. 380; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Cone, 37 id. 567; Cassin v. Delaney, 38 N. Y. 178.)

We do not desire to intimate that a verdict of $500, or even a larger sum, would be excessive in a case of this kind, if a jury free from passion or prejudice should render such a verdict; but a verdict that is seven-eighths excessive ought not to be the basis of a judgment. In such a case a new trial should be allowed.

The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Van Lom v. Schneiderman
210 P.2d 461 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
Horn v. Perry
1940 OK 82 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Wester v. Nelson
29 P.2d 1087 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Smith v. Hawkins
243 P. 1018 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)
Schendel v. Bradford
106 Ohio St. (N.S.) 387 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1922)
Henderson v. Dreyfus
191 P. 442 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1919)
Rhyne v. Turley
1913 OK 221 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Lupher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
122 P. 106 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Choctaw, O. G. R. Co. v. Burgess
1908 OK 149 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Adcock v. Oregon Railroad
77 P. 78 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Kan. 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbuchel-v-wright-kan-1890.