Bomgardner v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 07 April 1881 |
| Citation | 8 N.W. 481,55 Iowa 638 |
| Parties | BOMGARDNER AND OTHERS v. ANDREWS |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Linn circuit court.
The appellants, as proponents, sought to have what purported to be the will of Peter Bomgardner admitted to probate. The appellee, as contestant, objected thereto on the ground the said Peter was not of sound mind at the time the will was executed. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for contestant, and the plaintiffs appeal.J. J. Powell and J. B. Young, for appellants.
Blake & Harmel, for appellee.
Dr. Mansfield was introduced as a witness on the part of the contestant, and testified he saw the deceased some 15 days before the will was executed, and he then discovered the deceased was different from what he had been. His “principal idea was that some person was circulating reports going to crush him, and deprive him of his liberty.” Upon inquiry as to who it was, the deceased responded that “he could not think of anybody but a waif of a boy here.”
Dr. Ristine, a witness introduced by the contestant, was asked the following hypothetical questions: “Suppose a man would transact his business as a sane man, and as he was always accustomed to do, and would deport himself with his neighbors in the customary manner when perfectly rational, but was laboring under the delusion that some one was slandering him and trying to deprive him of his liberty, would he be of sound or unsound mind on that particular subject?” The proponents objected to this question on the ground it was misleading. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered: “He would be unsound on the particular subject of his delusion, of course.” Thereupon the contestant asked said witness the following question: “Would unsoundness on that particular subject affect his action touching any person that he supposed to be trying to deprive him of his liberty?” To this question the proponents objected, “because there is no claim that he had any fear of his daughter Fanny.” Whereupon counsel for the contestant said they would so claim, and the court overruled the objection, and the witness answered: “It is my opinion it would influence his action toward the person.” Because of the action of the court just referred to a new trial was asked, which, having been overruled, the alleged error in allowing the questions aforesaid to be asked has been assigned as error.
It is claimed by counsel for the contestant there was evidence tending to show...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Oregon Short Line R. Co.
... ... Assn. v ... Woodson, 64 F. 689; Thompson on Trials, sec. 606; ... Reber v. Herring, 115 Pa. 599; Haish v ... Payson, 107 Ill. 365; Bomgardner v. Andrews, 55 ... Iowa 638; Williams v. Brown, 28 Ohio St. 547; ... State v. Anderson, 10 Oregon 448; Greeno v. Roark, ... 56 P. [Kan. 1899] ... ...
-
Nichols v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... 606; Reber v. Herring, 115 Pa. 599; ... North Amer. Acc. Ass. v. Woodson, 64 F. 689; see, ... also, Haish v. Payson, 107 Ill. 365; Bomgardner ... v. Andrews, 55 Iowa 638; Williams v. Brown, 28 ... Ohio St. 547; State v. Anderson, 10 Oregon 448; ... Greeno v. Roark, 56 P. (Kan. 1899), ... ...
- Bomgardner v. Andrews