Baehr v. Clark

• Decision Date: 05 October 1891
• Citation: 83 Iowa 313,49 N.W. 840
• Parties: BAEHR v. CLARK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

83 Iowa 313

49 N.W. 840

BAEHR

v.CLARK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Pottawattomie county; A. B. THORNUL, Judge.

Action of replevin for a diamond ring and a diamond stud. The plaintiff and the defendant each claim to be the owner of said property. The cause was submitted to a jury, and, the jury being unable to agree upon a verdict, by agreement of the parties the issue was afterwards submitted to the court without a jury, on the evidence taken by the short-hand reporter at the jury trial. The court, upon an examination of the evidence, found for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Flickinger Bros., for appellant.

Chas. Ogaen and Wright, Baldwin & Haldane, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The court made special findings of the facts which it was thought were established by the evidence. We need not set out these findings in detail, but will recite such as are deemed material to a determination of the rights of the parties upon an appeal. The plaintiff is a dealer in diamonds at the city of Omaha, in the state of Nebraska. In the month of December, 1888, one J. J. Barker made his appearance at the plaintiff's place of business, and represented that he had a customer for a diamond ring and stud, and desired to examine the plaintiff's goods. He selected the ring and stud now in controversy, and the plaintiff delivered them to him to take them and show them to the party who desired to make the purchase. The sum of $450 was fixed as the price of the diamonds, and Barker was to return them, or return with the price, in an hour. The plaintiff saw no more of Barker for two or three days, when he succeeded in having an interview. Barker at first stated that he had been robbed of the diamonds; said he had been knocked down and robbed, and called attention to certain bruises on his face and marks on his fingers. The plaintiff threatened to have Barker arrested, and then he stated he had lost the diamonds at a gambling-house; and afterwards he stated that they were in possession of the defendant, Clark, at Council Bluffs. It was afterwards ascertained that Barker, after obtaining possession of the diamonds, crossed the Missouri river to Council Bluffs, and stopped at a gambling-house kept by one Carrigg. While there he was in urgent need of money, and Carrigg advanced money to him, from time to time, and took and held the diamonds as security. When these advancements amounted to the sum of $247 Carrigg refused to make further advancements, and he and Barker went to the defendant with the diamonds, and sold them to him for the sum of $275, and Clark paid Carrigg, the keeper of the gambling-house, the sum of $247, and he paid Barker the balance, being $28. Barker represented to the defendant that the diamonds belonged to him. There are other facts disclosed in evidence as to efforts made by plaintiff to obtain payment for the property, and offers to purchase the diamonds from Clark, which are of no importance in the case. The plaintiff did no act which would in law estop him from asserting any claim he may have had at any time to recover the property from Clark. The court found that Clark was an innocent purchaser for value, and we incline to think that finding was correct. The only real question in the case is whether Clark is entitled to the property as an innocent purchaser? Other facts might be stated which authorize the conclusion that Barker obtained the possession of the goods by fraudulent representations, but enough has been stated to show that the court was fully authorized in finding that Barker had no customer for valuable diamonds. The fact that he did not return in an hour,...