Overbey v Poteat
The following is the Case Summary of Overbey v Poteat. In 1960, the petitioner Overbey commenced this suit in the Sessions Court of Williamson County against the respondent Poteat to recover damages to his automobile, resulting from a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and a black Angus steer owned by the defendant which was loose on the highway. There was a judgment in favor of the defendant in the Sessions Court, the Circuit Court and in the Court of Appeals successively.
Poteat”s evidence is as followed. Poteat is the owner of a farm near Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee on Hillsboro Road, one of the main roads leading from Franklin to Nashville and the same has a blacktop surface. There …show more content…
The pastures were not fenced off from the road and the appellant's cattle frequently crossed the road unattended to drink water. In this case the defendant had poor, incomplete fences unlike Poteat with normal, well kept fences.
The Court of appeals had 3 assignments of error.
In the first assignment of error, it is insisted that there is no question of the preponderance of the evidence, because the uncontradicted evidence showed that the defendant did not have sufficient fences to restrain the stock which they enclosed.
Under the second assignment of error, it is insisted that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendant exercised ordinary care in the maintenance of his fences and in his effort to keep his cattle within the enclosure, and in holding that this was a sufficient compliance with the law on his part, it being further repeated that according to defendant's own admissions, his fences were insufficient to restrain the cattle and keep them off the highway.
The third assignment repeats that there is no question of the preponderance of the evidence, because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory
The following is the Case Summary of Overbey v Poteat. In 1960, the petitioner Overbey commenced this suit in the Sessions Court of Williamson County against the respondent Poteat to recover damages to his automobile, resulting from a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and a black Angus steer owned by the defendant which was loose on the highway. There was a judgment in favor of the defendant in the Sessions Court, the Circuit Court and in the Court of Appeals successively.
Poteat”s evidence is as followed. Poteat is the owner of a farm near Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee on Hillsboro Road, one of the main roads leading from Franklin to Nashville and the same has a blacktop surface. There …show more content…
The pastures were not fenced off from the road and the appellant's cattle frequently crossed the road unattended to drink water. In this case the defendant had poor, incomplete fences unlike Poteat with normal, well kept fences.
The Court of appeals had 3 assignments of error.
In the first assignment of error, it is insisted that there is no question of the preponderance of the evidence, because the uncontradicted evidence showed that the defendant did not have sufficient fences to restrain the stock which they enclosed.
Under the second assignment of error, it is insisted that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the defendant exercised ordinary care in the maintenance of his fences and in his effort to keep his cattle within the enclosure, and in holding that this was a sufficient compliance with the law on his part, it being further repeated that according to defendant's own admissions, his fences were insufficient to restrain the cattle and keep them off the highway.
The third assignment repeats that there is no question of the preponderance of the evidence, because the uncontradicted evidence shows that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory