The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D had agreed to sell and deliver to P a number of sheep, and there had been paid to him the sum of $10 to bind the bargain. D and his brother brought the sheep from his farm on the day agreed upon, and delivered the same to P in the railway yard, preparatory to their being loaded in a car for Chicago. D delivered the sheep in the yard to P. The parties then went to a bank, at which point P insisted that there were too many bucks in the lot to conform to the contract, and tendered D the amount due less $40, which sum he proposed to retain until he received returns from the Chicago sale. D declined to receive the money, and the parties separated. P returned to the railroad yard, papered the inside of the car to protect the sheep, then loaded them, closed the car door with staples, and, when going away from the yard, met the d and his brother, who were returning. D demanded the sheep, and P refused to surrender possession. D went up the chute to the door with the avowed intention of taking the sheep out of the car, using such force as might be necessary, his brother accompanying him. P attempted to prevent D from opening the door by holding it, and there was a more or less altercation. D grabbed P by the left shoulder and left arm, pulled him away from the car door, swung him around to the end of the chute, which was covered with ice, let go, and P went down the chute with much force, sliding upon one hip and one shoulder to the bottom, about thirty-five feet. P then returned to the door. The parties seized each other and went together to the bottom of the chute, where some blows were exchanged. P then went away. D took forcible possession of the sheep, removed them to another car, and shipped them himself. D, young and vigorous, received no injuries, while P, a feeble man in the neighborhood of sixty years of age, was unable to leave his house for two weeks, and during that time was daily attended by a physician. In 1863, while serving in the army, D had been injured by the explosion of a shell, for which injury he was receiving a pension at the time of the assault and battery. P sued D for assault and battery. P attempted to show, as part of his case, the physical condition he was in just prior to the assault, arising from this injury, and how and to what extent his condition had been affected by the acts of D. The court held this evidence and that it was proper in rebuttal only. It eventually ruled that such testimony was incompetent for any purpose and refused to permit P to show whether his condition at the time of the trial was due to injuries for which D was responsible. D got the verdict, and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.