Mansfield v. Mallory

• Citation: 118 N.W. 290,140 Iowa 206
• Parties: MANSFIELD v. MALLORY.
• Decision Date: 19 November 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

140 Iowa 206

118 N.W. 290

MANSFIELD

v.MALLORY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 19, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Winnebago County; Clifford P. Smith, Judge.

Action at law to recover for services rendered at the instance of the defendant. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.O. W. Harmsen and Gordon & Belsheim, for appellant.

T. A. Kingland, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff claims that at defendant's verbal request he went to Buffalo Center, Iowa, and there “trained four certain ponies and one goat,” devoting to said services a period of six weeks, and that his labors were reasonably worth $15 per week, no part of which has been paid. The defendant denies the claim thus stated, and avers that plaintiff undertook to train the animals without any compensation, except such as he “might realize from the use of said animals in the show business.” He also sets up a counterclaim against the plaintiff, for money lent, rent of house, and for hay and corn furnished him, in the aggregate sum of $116. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

1. It is argued that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, but the point is not well taken. The plaintiff's testimony is to the effect that defendant requested him to undertake the training of the animals, and that, acting upon this request, the services were rendered. This made a prima facie case for the recovery of the reasonable value of such services. The defendant's claim that the plaintiff trained the animals under a special agreement or understanding, by which his compensation was to be in the receipts from public exhibitions, is in the nature of an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing which is upon the party pleading it. The testimony upon this issue was in conflict, and the finding for plaintiff thereon is conclusive upon this court.

2. The defendant sought to show that the services rendered were of little value; the training of the animals being incomplete and imperfect. While the judgment of the several witnesses as to the excellence and perfection of the training is not wholly in accord, they soberly assured the jury that they saw some of the ponies “teeter-tottering, some on a pedestal, and some waltzing,” and one would “answer questions,” while the goat would ride a board platform “strapped to a horse's back,” when proper precaution had been taken to “secure the goat's feet by strings passing through holes in the platform.” The court is not prepared to say, as a matter of law, that these remarkable accomplishments are not...