Osborn v. Ratliff
| Decision Date | 24 April 1880 |
| Citation | 5 N.W. 746,53 Iowa 748 |
| Parties | OSBORN v. RATLIFF ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.
ACTION to recover specific personal property. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for defendants. The plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
M Polk, for appellant.
Wainwright & Miller and Read & Wilkinson, for appellees.
The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the property because he was the owner, and the defendants claimed such possession under a chattel mortgage executed by C. S Osborn. The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf, and on cross-examination was asked if he had not told one Guiberson the property belonged to C. S. Osborn. This question was objected to as not proper cross-examination, but it was overruled, and the witness answered that he had not. Conceding the question was improper no possible prejudice resulted therefrom to the plaintiff. The defendants were the only parties prejudiced by the answer.
During the cross-examination of D. B. Kirk, a witness for the defendant, the court on his own motion interfered and suggested that certain matters were immaterial, and intimated to counsel not to spend time by inquiring in relation thereto. It is said this constitutes error. We incline to think the court did right, but whether this is so or not is immaterial, because counsel acquiesced therein, and did not except to the action of the court.
On cross-examination of George Hunt, a witness for defendant, counsel for plaintiff asked the witness a question which was objected to, and he thereupon said it was for impeaching purposes, whereupon the court sustained the objection on the ground the question was too general, no time being given when the alleged conversation occurred. In this there was no error, because no time was stated.
In rebuttal the plaintiff offered to introduce the assessor's book of the proper township, for the purpose of showing that C. S. Osborn was not taxed with the property in question. This evidence was objected to on the ground that it was irrelevant, and not rebutting; the objection was sustained. The defendants claimed possession under the mortgage, and no declaration made by the mortgagor could prejudice them, unless it was made after the mortgage was executed, if then. Now, the assessment in question, and declarations made at the time by Osborn, was in 1877, and the mortgage was not executed until March, 1878.
Counsel for plaintiff asked Jane Oaks certain questions for the purpose of, as he stated, corro borating the evidence of the plaintiff. The matters sought to be proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Waterloo, C.F. & N. Ry. Co.
... ... exception thereto, and that it is not in a position to be ... heard thereon now. Osborn v. Ratliff, 53 Iowa 748, 5 ... N.W. 746 ... [153 ... Iowa 450] IV. The appellant challenged the juror Banfield for ... cause ... ...
-
Payne v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co.
...to say nevertheless that appellant took no exception thereto, and that it is not in a position to be heard thereon now. Osborn v. Ratliff, 53 Iowa, 748, 5 N. W. 746. [5][6] 4. The appellant challenged the Juror Banfield for cause. The challenge was in these words: “Defendant challenges Juro......
- Osborn v. Ratliff