Galliers v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 April 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 1109,116 Iowa 319
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: GALLIERS v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

116 Iowa 319

89 N.W. 1109

GALLIERS

v.CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 11, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Monroe county; T. M. Fee, Judge.

Action to recover the value of a horse alleged to have died on account of the negligence of the defendant. Trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals. Affirmed.T. B. Perry and N. E. Kendall, for appellant.

Dashiell & Mason, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The petition alleges the loss of a standard-bred trotting stallion through the negligence of the defendant in shipping the horse from Des Moines to Albia in a car in which fresh lime had recently been carried. It was also averred that the horse was purchased by the plaintiff for breeding purposes, and that he was young, highly bred, and well-gaited. The defendant, in its answer, denied these allegations, and stated that the plaintiff traded for him an old horse, which he knew was of no value, and without seeing the stallion in question until his arrival at Albia. The affirmative allegation above noted was stricken out on motion. There was no error in this, for two reasons. In the first place, it could only be material on the question of the value of the horse traded for, which was provable under the denials in the answer; and, secondly, because the value of the horse traded was not in issue, and could not be put in issue, in this action, as we shall show hereinafter.

The defendant sought to show on the cross-examination of the plaintiff that the horse he traded for the stallion was worthless; and, further, that he then had an action pending for a breach of warranty in the sale of the horse to him. This testimony, and the offer of the petition in the other action, were rejected, and rightly so. We have held that the price at which an article sold may be shown as tending to fix its market value. Buford v. McGetchie, 60 Iowa, 298, 14 N. W. 790. But we have been cited to no case in this state or elsewhere which holds that, where personal property has been traded for, and a third person destroys a part of that property, he may prove the worthlessness of the property exchanged therefor. If the seller is satisfied with the value of property which he received in exchange for his property, its value cannot be shown in reduction of the value of the property for which it was exchanged. This seems to us to be the sound rule, and in fact the only one that will keep the main issue in cases of this kind before the jury; otherwise it would be competent to try the value of every article which had entered into trades leading up to...