Hoffman v. Jones

• Decision Date: 12 November 1940
• Docket Number: 45316.
• Citation: 294 N.W. 588,229 Iowa 333
• Parties: HOFFMAN v. JONES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

294 N.W. 588

229 Iowa 333

HOFFMAN v. JONES.

No. 45316.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

November 12, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Russell Jordan, Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this action on a promissory note. Defendant filed answer pleading the affirmative defense of payment. Trial to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant has appealed. Opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

Henry P. Daly and John Connolly, Jr., both of Des Moines, for appellant.

Milton S. Weinberger, of Des Moines, for appellee.

MITCHELL, Justice.

Carl Hoffman, the plaintiff, and Lena Jones, the defendant, are brother and sister. On the 29th of July, 1929, the defendant made, executed and delivered for a valuable consideration her one promissory note in writing, in the sum of $1,000, payable to the order of Carl Hoffman, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent. On the 17th day of February, 1939, the plaintiff commenced this action, praying for judgment upon the note together with interest and costs. The petition admits that the plaintiff has received payment of the sum of $225. The defendant filed answer, in which she admits the execution and delivery of the note sued on, but alleges by way of affirmative defense that the said note has been paid in full. There was a trial, at which many witnesses testified, and the case was submitted to a jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant being dissatisfied has appealed.

It is strenuously argued by the appellant that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the evidence. There is a sharp conflict in the evidence. No possible good could be accomplished by setting it out. It was a question of believing one side or the other. The jury listened to the evidence, they saw the witnesses that testified, and as there is evidence to sustain the verdict, this court will not set aside the verdict of the jury.

The second error argued is that the jury was guilty of misconduct. There is an affidavit attached to the motion for a new trial. It was made by one of the jurors, who swears that in the deliberation in the jury room, there was much conversation among the members of the jury, that there had been previous litigation between the parties to this action and that a verdict for the plaintiff would bring an end to the litigation. The record in this case does show that there had been prior litigation; appellant herself so testified. The...