Hardin v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 05 January 1863 |
| Citation | 15 Iowa 460 |
| Parties | HARDIN v. SNYDER |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Keokuk District Court.
AN ordinary action upon a written contract to recover the balance of the purchase-money on the sale of certain mill premises, in which the plaintiff obtained a judgment of $ 959.77, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Negus & Culbertson for the appellant.
G. D Woodin for the appellee.
Hon CALEB BALDWIN, Chief Justice, Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Judge Hon. RALPH P. LOWE, Judge, from December 7 to December 24, 1863. Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Chief Justice, Hon. RALPH P. LOWE, Judge, from January 1, 1864, to the conclusion of the Term. [*]
The appellant complains, first, that the Court refused some of his instructions, and gave those asked by the plaintiff. It will appear from an examination of these instructions excepted to, that they were framed with reference to the stipulations of the written contract executed between the parties, or else with direct reference to the evidence which had been introduced. The ruling of the Court upon those based upon the contract seems so manifestly correct that we do not deem it necessary to go into a detailed statement of the contract and the instructions, in order to show that the same were not erroneous. As to instructions drawn with reference to, and based upon, the evidence, we answer, that the record does not purport to contain all the evidence ; but so far as it is certified to us, we discover no objections to the ruling of the Court on the same. If there was other evidence introduced on the trial which would show the action of the Court to be error in the matter complained of it should have been sent up with the record.
Again, by the terms of the contract, the defendant was to pay the plaintiff $ 1,200 for the property sold, in the following manner namely: In store goods and groceries, &c, on demand, after the 15th day of March, 1862, at St. Louis, at the house of C. H. Tyler & Co., at wholesale prices, of any goods sold by said firm, provided the plaintiff would pay one-third of the gross amount he should take in cash. In order to effectuate this agreement it was further agreed that the defendant should furnish the plaintiff orders or contracts for the goods as above specified, on the house at St. Louis, at or before the 15th of March, 1852, upon the doing of which the plaintiff was to convey by deed the property contracted to be sold.
On the trial, the plaintiff, to maintain his action, offered in evidence the contract of sale sued on: also his deed, conveying the property sold to the defendant. The plaintiff then testified that he had received from the defendant a contract between C. H. Tyler and one Buchanan, calling for the delivery of $ 1,200 in goods on the payment of one-third more in cash; that he went to St. Louis and obtained thereon four hundred dollars in goods by purchasing one-third more in cash which he did, and credited the defendant with the said $ 400. Afterwards he sent one Jourdan to St. Louis with the same contract to obtain the balance of the goods due on said contract from the house of C. H. Tyler & Co. For this purpose, one-third of the cash payment was tendered by the said Jourdan, and a demand of the goods made of said house, but was refused, &c.
To this evidence the defendant interposed a demurrer, as being insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial