Campbell v. Park

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the Court*799PER CURIAM.
Citation104 N.W. 799,128 Iowa 181
PartiesCAMPBELL v. PARK ET AL.
Decision Date28 September 1905

128 Iowa 181
104 N.W. 799

CAMPBELL
v.
PARK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 28, 1905.


On rehearing. Opinion, as published in 101 N. W. 861, modified.

*799PER CURIAM.

A reconsideration of this case on application of appellee has led the majority of the court to the conclusion that the portion of the opinion relating to the ruling excluding the written lease or instrument of conditional sale, signed in the name of the Daniels Foot Cycle Company by Gallund. *800is erroneous. The opinion is therefore modified by changing the paragraph commencing with the words, “The defendant testified that the machinery,” and ending with the words “to remain in the record, or to be introduced when offered,” so as to read as follows: “The defendant testified that the machinery, which was represented to constitute a considerable part of the assets of the company, did not belong to it, but to his knowledge was taken away by persons claiming to be the owners thereof. This evidence was stricken out on the ground that defendant did not show any actual knowledge as to whether the persons who took it away did so rightfully or wrongfully. But we think it can hardly be seriously contended that the fact of the machinery being taken away under claim of right, and without resistance on the part of those interested in the company, did not tend to show that it did not belong to the company. The court should have allowed the testimony of the defendant as to the machines being taken away to remain in the record, or to be introduced when offered.”

With this modification, the opinion is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 18 Febrero 1916
    ...Royer's Case, 147 Iowa, 277, 281, 126 N. W. 168. And the principle is clearly asserted in Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, which holds that, in reviewing the correctness of a ruling directing a verdict, we consider, at least for the losing party, all evidence t......
  • Eisentrager v. Great N. Ry. Co., No. 29959.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 13 Diciembre 1916
    ...that the court correct its errors, if in its judgment any have occurred.” [3][4] In Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, we hold that if verdict should not have been directed had testimony not been erroneously rejected we may consider the excluded testimony on revi......
  • Seymour v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co., No. 30653.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 3 Octubre 1917
    ...the jury if the testimony excluded had been admitted, which distinguishes this case from Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799. It seems, too, there was no exception to the exclusion. [14][15][16][17][18] VI. Finally, it is contended to be immaterial whether those wh......
  • Iowa Elec. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., No. 46597.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 6 Febrero 1945
    ...McCuddin v. Dickinson, 230 Iowa 1141, 1143, 300 N.W. 308, 309. Squarely in point is Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa 181, 186, 101 N.W. 861, 862,104 N.W. 799, where it is said, ‘WHERE THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECeived, and then erroneously stricken out, we may consider such evidence as shou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 18 Febrero 1916
    ...Royer's Case, 147 Iowa, 277, 281, 126 N. W. 168. And the principle is clearly asserted in Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, which holds that, in reviewing the correctness of a ruling directing a verdict, we consider, at least for the losing party, all evidence t......
  • Eisentrager v. Great N. Ry. Co., No. 29959.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 13 Diciembre 1916
    ...that the court correct its errors, if in its judgment any have occurred.” [3][4] In Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799, we hold that if verdict should not have been directed had testimony not been erroneously rejected we may consider the excluded testimony on revi......
  • Seymour v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co., No. 30653.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 3 Octubre 1917
    ...the jury if the testimony excluded had been admitted, which distinguishes this case from Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa, 181, 101 N. W. 861, 104 N. W. 799. It seems, too, there was no exception to the exclusion. [14][15][16][17][18] VI. Finally, it is contended to be immaterial whether those wh......
  • Iowa Elec. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., No. 46597.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 6 Febrero 1945
    ...McCuddin v. Dickinson, 230 Iowa 1141, 1143, 300 N.W. 308, 309. Squarely in point is Campbell v. Park, 128 Iowa 181, 186, 101 N.W. 861, 862,104 N.W. 799, where it is said, ‘WHERE THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY RECeived, and then erroneously stricken out, we may consider such evidence as shou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT