Henry v. Henry

• Decision Date: 16 November 1920
• Docket Number: No. 33492.,33492.
• Citation: 179 N.W. 856,190 Iowa 1257
• Parties: HENRY v. HENRY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

190 Iowa 1257

179 N.W. 856

HENRY

v.HENRY.

No. 33492.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 16, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Mahaska County; D. W. Hamilton, Judge.

Action for damages consequent on the alleged alienation of the affections of plaintiff's husband by his sister, the defendant, resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. The defendant appeals, affirmed.L. T. Shangle, D. C. Waggoner, and Malcolm & True, all of Oskaloosa, for appellant.

Reynolds & Heitsman and McCoy & McCoy, all of Oskaloosa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff was married to defendant's brother June 10, 1914. He was her third husband and she his first wife. She was over 40 years of age and he had lived 56 years. They undertook and did at times occupy certain parts of the dwelling house situated on premises owned by the husband and defendant as tenants in common, and the defendant occupied other portions thereof. The latter was over 60 years of age and had never been married. There was evidence from which the jury might have found that plaintiff had enlisted the affections of her husband, and that defendant by her course of conduct had alienated his affection, such as they were. The jury might, if so disposed, have found to the contrary, for the evidence was in sharp conflict and that body must have based their conclusion in reliance on the truthfulness of the plaintiff's story and the rejection of that of defendant and her brother. It will serve no useful purpose to review this evidence. It is enough to say that it was sufficient to carry the issues to the jury.

II. Appellant complains of several of the instructions. No exception was taken to either of two of these. Alleged exceptions to seven of the instructions are found only in the motion for new trial, filed eight days after the verdict was returned and filed. Further time within which to file exceptions had not been allowed by the court, though there was an extension of time to file motion for new trial. The latter order did not operate to extend the time for filing exceptions to instructions. This has always been the rule. Haman v. Preston, 173 N. W. 894, and section 1 of chapter 24, Acts of the Thirty-Seventh General Assembly, does not warrant any different holding. That section requires that exceptions to instructions, or any part thereof, be filed within five days after the verdict in the cause is filed, or within such farther time as the court may allow. These may be included in the ...