Morrow v. Scoville, No. 39320.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtALBERT
Citation221 N.W. 802,206 Iowa 1134
PartiesMORROW v. SCOVILLE.
Decision Date13 November 1928
Docket NumberNo. 39320.

206 Iowa 1134
221 N.W. 802

MORROW
v.
SCOVILLE.

No. 39320.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 13, 1928.


Appeal from District Court, Poweshiek County; D. W. Hamilton, Judge.

An action at law for damages for assault and battery, with a counterclaim for assault and criminal conversation. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

[221 N.W. 803]

Clyde McFarlin, of Montezuma, and McCoy & McCoy, of Oskaloosa, for appellant.

Thomas J. Bray, of Oskaloosa, for appellee.


ALBERT, J.

The claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant was guilty of assault and battery against her, committed on the 30th day of May, 1927. The answer and counterclaim gave rise to several different issues; when the case was submitted to the jury, but two were submitted: First, the issue made by the plaintiff's petition of assault and battery; and, second, the issue in the second count of defendant's counterclaim, involving the alleged charge of criminal conversation between the plaintiff, Mattie Morrow, and the defendant's husband, Charles Scoville.

[1] The first question raised in the case involves an instruction given by the court in which he told the jury, in substance, that, in determining the extent and severity of the injuries claimed to have been received by the plaintiff in the alleged assault, the jury might take into consideration the respective size, health, and physical condition of the parties as it appeared from the evidence in the case.

One of the defenses attempted by the defendant against plaintiff's charge of assault and battery was self-defense. The court rightly refused to submit this question to the jury, because there was no warrant to submit such an issue. The appellant insists that, this issue having been withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, the aforesaid instruction was unwarranted. It is true that this instruction is most frequently used where the plea of self-defense is interposed. Under the evidence in this case, at the time of this assault, plaintiff weighed 173 pounds and the defendant 115 pounds. Under these circumstances, the instruction would seem of greater use to the defendant than it would be to the plaintiff; at least, we can see no prejudicial error in giving it. See State v. Dickson, 200 Iowa, 17, 202 N. W. 225.

[2][3] In relation to the alleged illicit relations between the plaintiff and Charles Scoville, the husband of the defendant, on direct examination the defendant testified that up until the time of her knowledge of such relations her home was pleasant. She testified:

“My husband and I loved each other, and since that time my home has not been a home.”

She was then asked this question:

“Has there been anything other, in your knowledge, than the relations of Mattie Morrow and your husband that has made your home in the condition you now describe it is in? A. No, sir.”

She was then asked on cross-examination whether she had not heard that her husband was unduly intimate with other women, especially one Mrs. Jake Morrow. This cross-examination was strenuously objected to, and the admission of testimony along the line of showing her knowledge of the illicit relations between her husband...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...Perry, 1931, 211 Iowa 920, 234 N.W. 844; Roggensack v. Winona Monument Co., 1930, 211 Iowa 1307, 233 N.W. 493; Morrow v. Scoville, 1928, 206 Iowa 1134, 221 N.W. 802; Jones v. Van Donselaar, 1925, 200 Iowa 176, 204 N.W. 416; Taylor v. Williamson, 1924, 197 Iowa 88, 196 N.W. 713, there is no ......
  • Gregory v. Sorenson, No. 40973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1932
    ...v. Haleen, 157 Iowa, 647, 138 N. W. 502. Actual damages, as above stated, were allowed by the jury. Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa, 1134, 221 N. W. 802. Resultantly there is a basis for exemplary damages. “Under our rule it is peculiarly the province of the jury to say whether or not exemplar......
  • Sebastian v. Wood, No. 48586
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 16, 1954
    ...695, 146 N.W. 829; Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559, 562, 115 N.W. 233; Boom v. Boom, 206 Iowa 70, 74-75, 220 N.W. 17; Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa 1134, 1138-1139, 221 N.W. 802; Gregory v. Sorenson, 214 Iowa 1374, 1385-1387, 242 N.W. 91; Kuiken v. Garrett, 243 Iowa 785, 799-800, 51 N.W.2d 14......
  • Heldenbrand v. Executive Council of Iowa, For Use and Benefit of State, No. 2--56234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 22, 1974
    ...and confine it to such factual situation. A misstatement of the law in an instruction to a jury is reversible error. Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa 1134, 1138, 221 N.W. 802, 804; Brown v. Lyon, 258 Iowa 1216, 1222, 142 N.W.2d 536, In the light of our conclusion and holding that the proper dat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...Perry, 1931, 211 Iowa 920, 234 N.W. 844; Roggensack v. Winona Monument Co., 1930, 211 Iowa 1307, 233 N.W. 493; Morrow v. Scoville, 1928, 206 Iowa 1134, 221 N.W. 802; Jones v. Van Donselaar, 1925, 200 Iowa 176, 204 N.W. 416; Taylor v. Williamson, 1924, 197 Iowa 88, 196 N.W. 713, there is no ......
  • Gregory v. Sorenson, No. 40973.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1932
    ...v. Haleen, 157 Iowa, 647, 138 N. W. 502. Actual damages, as above stated, were allowed by the jury. Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa, 1134, 221 N. W. 802. Resultantly there is a basis for exemplary damages. “Under our rule it is peculiarly the province of the jury to say whether or not exemplar......
  • Sebastian v. Wood, No. 48586
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 16, 1954
    ...695, 146 N.W. 829; Ahrens v. Fenton, 138 Iowa 559, 562, 115 N.W. 233; Boom v. Boom, 206 Iowa 70, 74-75, 220 N.W. 17; Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa 1134, 1138-1139, 221 N.W. 802; Gregory v. Sorenson, 214 Iowa 1374, 1385-1387, 242 N.W. 91; Kuiken v. Garrett, 243 Iowa 785, 799-800, 51 N.W.2d 14......
  • Heldenbrand v. Executive Council of Iowa, For Use and Benefit of State, No. 2--56234
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 22, 1974
    ...and confine it to such factual situation. A misstatement of the law in an instruction to a jury is reversible error. Morrow v. Scoville, 206 Iowa 1134, 1138, 221 N.W. 802, 804; Brown v. Lyon, 258 Iowa 1216, 1222, 142 N.W.2d 536, In the light of our conclusion and holding that the proper dat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT