Grape v. Wiederholdt

• Decision Date: 19 October 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 516
• Parties: GRAPE v. WIEDERHOLDT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 N.W. 516

GRAPE

v.WIEDERHOLDT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 19, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Fremont county; N. W. Macey, Judge.

Proceedings in probate to establish a claim against the estate of Valentine Wiederholdt, deceased. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Hammond & Stevens, for appellant.

R. C. Campbell and W. E. Mitchell, for appellee.

ROBINSON, C. J.

In November, 1896, Valentine Wiederholdt died, and on the first day of the next month Mike Wiederholdt was appointed and qualified as administrator of his estate. On the 5th day of November, 1897, the plaintiff filed against the estate a claim for $1,160.28, based on what purported to be a promissory note made by the decedent, June 11, 1886, for $400, payable to the plaintiff or order three years after its date, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The defendant filed an answer to the claim, denying that the decedent made the note, denying that it was ever delivered, and alleging that it was without consideration, and that it had been fully paid. The plaintiff testified as a witness, and was asked, “Where did you see this note of Wiederholdt's (Exhibit 1)?” An objection to the question was sustained, and of that ruling the plaintiff complains. Nothing in the record indicates what relation the information sought had to the matters in controversy, nor what answer was desired. So far as shown, it would have been wholly irrelevant to any issue in the case, and, under the circumstances, we cannot presume that it would have been relevant, and that the ruling of the court was prejudicial.

Complaint is also made of the failure of the court to rule upon certain objections made to testimony. When the objections were made the court stated, in effect, that it would consider them, and would receive the testimony, until its application to the case could be ascertained. It does not appear that the attention of the court was afterwards called to the matter, and we must presume that the objections were waived. Shroeder v. Webster, 88 Iowa, 627, 55 N. W. 569;Payne v. Dicus, 88 Iowa, 423, 55 N. W. 483, and cases therein cited. We are of the opinion that the evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.