Court Opinion

ID: 9834390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:33:15.242884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.356796
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[10] In discussing the twenty-fifth assignment, and after quoting a part of the evidence of the witness Morrill, to the effect that the facing switch track did not create a dangerous condition, we said that:
“We are not advised by brief nor elsewhere, except by the allegation in the answer, that appellant expected to show that the switch track would have created a dangerous condition in the double track.”
The quoted statement is not altogether justified by the record, as insisted by appellant in the motion, as the record discloses *602that another witness testified in effect that the change in the switch was made necessary to eliminate the danger of the facing switch against the current of traffic. The error assigned was the refusal of the court to permit the witness Connor to testify as to whether the double tracking at the place of the switch was to expedite business. What we should have said, if anything, was that the issue of danger of the facing switch track was not submitted as an issue in the case, nor was the issue of danger from the facing switch requested to be submitted, though evidence pro and con on the issue of danger from the facing switch was offered. While the necessity for putting in the double track and the purpose of it was a provable issue, it was not a material issue. As said in the opinion, the danger feature to the public by reason of the facing switch was the material issue, and the purpose of stating briefly the evidence of the witness Morrill, though- not necessary to state it, was to show that the judgment of the court on the issue made by the- pleading, though not submitted, was sustained by the evidence.
[11] The only other feature of the motion we care to discuss is the comment in the opinion on assignment 26. We said that the appellant did 'not complain of the question to the witness Powers as reframed and answered. Appellant insists' in the motion that his objection went to the question and answer as refrained. With appellant’s construction of the objection, the question to Powers found in appellant’s statement under the assignment was:
“Now, assuming that profit was cut down to $1.15 or $1 a ton, state whether or not it would be profitable to handle coal.”
The question, as reframed, was:
“Now, Mr. Powers, under those conditions you found after the track had been taken out, under the- competition that then existed, state whether or not it was profitable to handle coal in carload lots.”
To the question as reframed the witness answered:
“It was not.”
The objection was:
“That if a man made $1 a ton profit, to permit him to state whether or not it was profitable to handle coal would be permitting the witness before the jury to say he didn’t do business because he didn’t make a big profit as otherwise, when his own evidence shows that plaintiff is making a good profit, a working, living profit.”
Assuming that the above objection went to the question as reframed and answered, the question presented here is: Should the witness have been permitted to say that it was not profitable under the conditions witness found after the track was taken out, and under the competition then existing, to handle coal in carload lots with a profit of $1 or $1.15 per -ton.
The issue was sufficiently made in the pleading, and, thus tendered, was a provable one. It was not questioned that Powers was not qualified to answer the question. It seems to us that the question to Powers was not open to the objection made.
We have concluded that the motion should be overruled.