Mitchell v. W. A. Lang & Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1907 |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 87 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. W. A. LANG & CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; J. H. Applegate, Judge.
Action at law to recover for services performed. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Cardell & Fahey, for appellant.
Giddings & Winegar, for appellee.
On appearing to the action, the defendant company moved that the venue be changed to Delaware county for trial; that being the county of its residence. The motion was supported by affidavits, and plaintiff filed affidavits in resistance. The motion was overruled, and thereof defendant complains as error. We think error does not affirmatively appear. Under the statute (Code, § 3500), when a corporation, company, or individual has an office or agency in any county for the transaction of business, any action growing out of or connected with the business of that office or agency may be brought in the county where such office or agency is located. From the affidavits before it the court was justified in finding that defendant had an agency in Dallas county, engaged in furthering its business interests--that of selling stallions for breeding purposes--and that plaintiff was there employed to assist in such business. We do not deem it necessary to go into details. The motion was properly overruled.
Several rulings on evidence are complained of. We think no prejudicial error appears. The instructions given covered the case fully and fairly, and there was embodied therein the substance of the requests presented by defendant as far as correct and applicable to the case.
The principal contention of appellant is that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence, and hence its motion for new trial should have been sustained. We think otherwise. The employment is not seriously disputed. Whether or not plaintiff performed the services for which he sues was involved in more or less of dispute. But there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could base a finding in his favor, and, this being true, the trial court was right in refusing to interfere with the verdict.
An extended discussion could serve to no good purpose; and we conclude that the judgment should be, and it is, affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H. L. Munn Lumber Co. v. City of Ames
...by contract, it is only necessary as a general rule that the contract be enforceable.' That is followed by these apt statements at 134 Iowa 607, 112 N.W. 87: 'And it is also true that, when the title passes under the terms of the contract, it relates back to the date of the contract, and th......
- In re Bernhard's Estate
- Wollgast v. Henning (In re Bernhard's Estate)
-
Babb v. Herring Motor Co.
...the former appeal; that this should have been done; and that, by its failure to do so, appellant has waived the question. Mitchell v. Lang & Co., (Iowa) 112 N.W. 87 (not officially No prejudicial error appears, and the judgment is--Affirmed. STEVENS, C. J., WEAVER and DE GRAFF, JJ., concur. ...