Biggs v. Seufferlein
Decision Date | 23 February 1914 |
Citation | 145 N.W. 507,164 Iowa 241 |
Parties | BIGGS v. SEUFFERLEIN. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, O'Brien County; John F. Oliver, Judge.
Action to recover damages for assault and battery. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.Sidney C. Kerberg, of Audubon, and T. E. Diamond, of Sheldon, for appellant.
C. A. Babcock, of Sheldon, for appellee.
The facts upon which plaintiff predicates her right to recover, as stated in her petition, are that on or about the 25th day of January, 1911, this defendant went to her house in Sanborn, Iowa, and then and there willfully and maliciously committed an assault and battery upon her by taking and grabbing hold of her wrists and arms, and jerking and pulling her about the house, whereby she sustained personal injuries which she estimates at $2,000. The defendant pleaded a general denial. There was a trial to a jury and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. Judgment being entered upon the verdict, the defendant appeals.
There was evidence tending to show the following facts:
That during the month of August, 1910, the firm of Kerberg & McFarland, a copartnership, were engaged in the retail hardware business in the town of Sanborn. Plaintiff was engaged in the business of conducting a boarding house in the same town. On the 29th day of August, 1910, the plaintiff hired from Kerberg & McFarland a Majestic range, and took possession of the same under the following contract: Prior to the happening of the matters complained of, and on the dates herein stated, the plaintiff paid, upon said range, the following sums: September 28th, cash, $10. October 21st, $4. November 4th, $8. December 9th, $10.
That the plaintiff failed to make the payments as required in said contract. That there was due and unpaid on said contract, on the 25th of January, 1911, $38. That prior to said date, the said firm had repeatedly requested plaintiff to make payments as required under the terms of the written contract, and, though she frequently promised to do so, made no other payments than as above set forth. That just before the happening of the matters complained of, the said firm had learned that plaintiff had broken up her boarding house, and intended to leave Sanborn, and that she was largely indebted to certain persons in the town. That on the 25th day of January, the time when it is claimed this assault was made, McFarland, together with this defendant, who was marshal of the town, went to the house of the plaintiff, and the following conversation took place: Plaintiff: Defendant: “Oh, I don't know, Mrs. Biggs.” Plaintiff: “Well, Mr. McFarland, what can I do for you?” McFarland: Plaintiff: McFarland: “You mean that, do you, Mrs. Biggs?” Plaintiff: “Yes, sir.” Thereupon, McFarland went to the telephone in the middle room of the house and called up the store and told his partner to send some one down with tools and a dray. That, while he was there, the defendant went into the kitchen and pulled the stove out from the wall and took the pipe down. That, after he got through, McFarland went into the kitchen and took off the first section of the top of the stove and carried it out into the yard. That, at this time, the man whom he had called over the telephone arrived and immediately went to take off the towel roll that runs along the front of the stove. This was done in order to get the stove through the door. About this time, plaintiff said: McFarland said: Thereupon defendant said, “What will we do?” McFarland said, “We will take the stove.” Thereupon the plaintiff said: Thereupon McFarland and the defendant and the hired man proceeded to carry out some more of the loose parts, and, while the hired man was trying to get the door off, plaintiff came up and said: Thereupon she jumped up and sat upon the reservoir on the stove. At that time, all the top of the stove had been taken off, and they were still working on the door. Then the defendant says, “Mac (meaning McFarland), don't you think it will go through the door?” McFarland said, “Well, we can try it.” Then the defendant said, “Mrs. Biggs, you will please get off of the stove.” She said: The defendant said, “I guess it isn't as bad as that, Mrs. Biggs,” and he reached up and took hold of her and pulled her off the stove. Her feet were about six or eight inches from the floor, and she lit on her feet. Then she grabbed a coffee pot and hit the defendant over the head with it and called him certain names, and said she would shoot his brains out. After removing her from the stove, the defendant did not lay his hands on her or touch her, but said, with reference to her threat, “Now, Mrs. Biggs, I advise you not to do anything of that kind, for that won't do.” Thereupon she went to the phone and called for her husband, who was at the roundhouse. They loaded the stove on the dray and went away.
The defendant's testimony tended to establish, substantially, the above facts. The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that she denied the right of McFarland and this defendant, at all times, to take the stove. Told them that they could not take it unless they had papers for that purpose; that she thereupon got up and sat upon the stove, and the defendant said, “If you don't get off that stove, I will take you off.” She says, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New England Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Hubbell
... ... (14 R. C. L. 799; ... Jones v. City of Caldwell, 20 Idaho 5, 116 P. 110, ... 48 L. R. A., N. S., 119; Biggs v. Seufferlien, 164 ... Iowa 241, 145 N.W. 507; Poole v. Consolidated St. Ry ... Co., 100 Mich. 379, 59 N.W. 390, 25 L. R. A. 744; ... Russell v ... ...
- Biggs v. Seufferlein