Court Opinion

ID: 9655746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:20:40.180302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:20.679344
License: Public Domain

Burke, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff and defendant are -neighboring farmers. Defendant’s farm buildings are about one-half mile southeast of plaintiff’s buildings. A railroad right of way which runs approximately east and west separates their lands. The undisputed testimony -discloses that plaintiff went to defendant’s premises, at approximately five o’clock on an August morning for the purpose of releasing some of his horses which *741defendant had impounded because of damage the horses had done to his wheat crop. To accomplish the release plaintiff proceeded along, the railroad right of way to the pasture in which the horses had been placed. According to his own testimony, he extracted a staple by' which the top wire of the fence, enclosing the pasture, was affixed to a fence post, let the wire down and called his horses out through the gap he had thus made in the fence. He had already started to drive his horses home along the railroad right of way,, when defendant came through the gap in the fence. Plaintiff testified, “He (defendant) said I stole that horses. And I told him,-‘Hid I?’ I say, ‘What about your calves? How did they get in and out of my fence?’ And he started coming after me.” Plaintiff also testified that as defendant came toward him-he went, toward the defendant. There is a direct conflict,in the testimony as to what happened when the two met. Plaintiff said that defendant hit him and as he fell forward he grabbed the defendant around the legs and they both fell to the ground. Defendant says that plaintiff grabbed him around the waist, threw him to the ground and fell on top of him and that.no blows were struck until they were both.on their feet again. In my opinion it is immaterial which version of the beginning of the fight is accepted as true. It is evident from the .record that had blood had existed between the parties for some time. On two occasions plaintiff had impounded livestock of the defendant. On one of these; defendant had paid fifty dollars damages to secure their release. On the other, they either escaped or were released without the knowledge of plaintiff. On this occasion when defendant appeared and charged plaintiff with stealing the horses, plaintiff countered by charging the defendant with stealing the calves. At that time the plaintiff was between the defendant and plaintiff’s home. For him to go towards the defendant, as he stated he did, it was necessary for him to turn around and move in a direction away from his home. No conclusion other than that the gauntlet was thrown and readily accepted seenis reasonable to me in the circumstances. It was a mutual combat.
Each person injured in a mutual combat may recover from the other all damages for injuries received. McCulloch v. Goodrich, *742105 Kan 1, 181 P 556, 6 ALR 386; Teeters v. Frost, 145 Old 273, 292 P 356, 71 ALR 179; Colby v. McClendon, 85 Old 293, 206 P 207, 30 ALR 196.
In this- case, the defendant counterclaimed for damages for injuries received by him in the fight. In his memorandum opinion the trial judge stated his conclusion that defendant had received injuries but dismissed the counterclaim on the ground that the- responsibility for the fight rested upon the defendant alone.. In this I believe the trial court was in error. If the der fendant was injured, as the trial court found, he was entitled to have his damages assessed and allowed. For this reason I believe a new trial should be granted.
Gtbxmson, J., concurs. .