Miller v. House

• Decision Date: 20 March 1884
• Citation: 18 N.W. 708,63 Iowa 82
• Parties: MILLER AND ANOTHER v. HOUSE AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

63 Iowa 82

18 N.W. 708

MILLER AND ANOTHER

v.HOUSE AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 20, 1884.

Appeal from Crawford circuit court.

This is an action upon a promissory note. The names of House & Laub are signed to the note, and it is made payable to the order of E. House, and indorsed by J. R. Miller, plaintiffs' intestate. The defendant Laub denied the execution of the note, and set up other defenses, and pleaded certain counterclaims. There was a trial by jury and a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.C. Haldane, for appellants.

Conner & Shaw, for defendant Laub.

ROTHROCK, J.

The deposition of E. House was taken by the defendant Laub in the state of Kansas. The witness was a partner in the firm of House & Laub. It appears from his evidence that the note in controversy was executed by House & Laub. It also very clearly appears therefrom that John R. Miller, deceased, never was the owner of the note, and that his administrators are not entitled to maintain an action thereon. Under the issues it was necessary that plaintiffs should prove the execution of the note. They proposed to make this proof by reading to the jury a part of the deposition of House. The defendant objected to the reading of part of the deposition, and the court required the plaintiffs to introduce all of it. After this was done the record before us proceeds as follows: “Plaintiffs then offered in evidence the note in suit without objection on the part of defendant Laub, and thereupon said defendant filed a motion in the words and figures following, to-wit.” The motion asked the court to direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant because the evidence showed that John R. Miller, the intestate, was not the owner of the note and had no right to maintain the action. The motion was sustained.

The appellants insist that the motion was premature; that they “had the right to offer further testimony touching any of the matters which it was incumbent upon them to prove before being compelled to answer to such a motion.” We think the counsel is correct. Appellants had not rested their case when the motion was made, and it surely cannot with propriety be claimed that because they were compelled to read the whole deposition, they were bound by the evidence therein contained, whether it be for or against them. It does not follow that because the court required the whole deposition to be read to the jury at once, instead of being offered in...