Hill v. C. Aultman & Co.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1886 |
| Citation | 27 N.W. 788,68 Iowa 630 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | HILL v. C. AULTMAN & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Webster district court.
The petition states that P. R. Baldwin & Co., of which partnership plaintiff was a member, were the agents of the defendant under a contract not in writing for the sale of farm machinery; that for his services defendant received a note executed by one McLaughlin, the amount of which, by reason of certain matters stated in petition, the plaintiff seeks to recover in this action. The defendant in substance admitted the agency, but pleaded that the contract constituting P. R. Baldwin & Co. the defendant's agents was in writing, and pleaded several defenses and a counter-claim which are sufficiently referred to in the opinion. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.R. M. Wright, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
1. One Patterson was the general agent of the defendant, and under the issues it became and was material whether a settlement made by him with P. R. Baldwin & Co. had been approved or ratified by the defendant. In making the settlement, Patterson stated in writing that he allowed (Baldwin & Co.) all they claimed, but that he could not say whether the company would do so or not. For the purpose of establishing such approval the plaintiff introduced one Kehm as a witness. He was a clerk in the employ of Baldwin & Co., and he testified they had received a letter from the plaintiff, and, against the objection of the defendant, he was permitted to state the contents of such letter. Kehm testified that he saw the letter on the files of Baldwin & Co. in January, 1880, and had never seen it since that time, and that he did not know, or “have any means of knowing, where it was.” He made no search for it, or, at least, failed to so testify. The firm of Baldwin & Co. was composed of the plaintiff and Baldwin. The deposition of the latter was taken, and introduced on the trial, but he was not asked and gave no evidence in relation to the letter; that is, as to whether it had been lost or destroyed. The firm of Baldwin & Co. had been dissolved prior to the trial, and the plaintiff testified that he had never seen the letter since it was received; that he did not know where it was, and did not know what became of it after the dissolution of the firm. Such being the evidence, we are of the opinion that the court erred in admitting evidence of the contents of the letter. Its loss or destruction was not established, nor had a search been made therefor among the papers of the firm. For aught that appears Baldwin...
To continue reading
Request your trial