Bulliss v. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1888 |
| Citation | 39 N.W. 245,76 Iowa 680 |
| Parties | BULLISS v. THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1889
Appeal from Hancock District Court.--HON. J. B. CLELAND, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages caused by fire set out by an engine on defendant's road. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Geo. E Clarke, for appellant.
R. J W. Bloom, for appellee.
I.
The plaintiff is a married woman, and her husband was a witness in her behalf, and gave evidence tending to show, as the plaintiff claims, that she owned the hay that was burned; and on cross-examination, that he had put up all the hay, and one stack for himself individually; that he worked for the plaintiff, and received therefor his board, clothes and spending money. Thereupon the defendant sought to show by the witness, in substance, the terms and conditions of the contract between him and his wife. Objections to the questions asked were made and sustained, and in so doing the defendant insists that the court erred. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property destroyed, and was not the real party in interest. The object of the proposed evidence was to establish this issue. We are of the opinion that this could not be done, on cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, to any greater extent than was allowed. Of course it was competent for the defendant to establish such fact by the introduction of evidence in its own behalf, but not, we think, in the manner attempted.
II. It is urged that, because the plaintiff's husband testified on cross-examination that he put up one stack of hay for "himself individually," and as the jury found all the hay belonged to the plaintiff, it necessarily follows that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence; but we do not think this is so. It was for the jury upon the whole evidence to say to whom the hay or any portion of it belonged, and we are unable to say that the verdict is not sufficiently supported thereby.
III. The land upon which the grass was grown and the hay cut did not belong to the plaintiff, but was the property of Mrs. Ellen A. Ives. Brockway & Elder, acting as her agents, in writing authorized the plaintiff to enter upon the land for the purpose of making hay. Another person claiming to act for Mrs. Ives, authorized Brockway & Elder to make the arrangement, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial