Court Opinion

ID: 6660131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:01:09.901302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:07.693349
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority. It appears that the only contention on this appeal is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. The main question involved in the trial of this case was whether at the time the alleged repairs were made the bridge in question was a public wagon bridge which was in use as a part of a public highway. This was the primary fact necessary to be established in order to sustain a recovery. The record discloses that the bridge had not been in use for the full period of ten years at the time of the repair or reconstruction for which recovery is sought. It follows that no rights were obtained under the statute of limitations. It appears that at both ends of the bridge the title to the property abutting upon the river banks was in private parties. The evidence is not entirely clear that the lands which constituted the approaches to the bridge had been dedicated to public use by the owners, or legally condemned and opened as a public road. At the conclusion of the trial plaintiff, without any motion for a directed verdict, and without objection of any kind that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict in favor of the defendant, requested the court, by proper instructions, which were given, to submit the main question, above stated, to the jury. This having been done, and the jury having returned a verdict for defendant, counsel for the appellee insists that plaintiff, by causing the sub*713mission of the main question to the jury, under the well-established rule in this state, cannot now claim that an adverse finding upon this question is not sustained by sufficient evidence. The question submitted at the request of the plaintiff was the material one, under the pleading, and if decided adversely to the plaintiff it could not recover. In American Fire Ins. Co. v. Landfare, 56 Neb. 482, it was held: “One who tenders an instruction which is given, which assumes the existence of evidence to establish an issuable fact in the case, cannot afterwards be heard to assert that there was no evidence received tending to prove such fact.” This rule was followed in Farmers Bank v. Garrow, 63 Neb. 64, and Missouri P. R. Co. v. Hemingway, 63 Neb. 610, and is so well settled that it ought not to be disregarded at this time.
The main issue in this case having been submitted to the jury upon instructions prepared and tendered by the plaintiff, and the jury having found against it upon the evidence, such finding should conclude the plaintiff, and terminate this litigation. As stated in the majority opinion, this is the fifth time that this case has been before us. There should, at some time, be an end to litigation. Therefore, I am of opinion that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.
Rose, J., joins in this dissent.