Putnam v. Bussing, No. 43185.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHAMILTON
Citation221 Iowa 871,266 N.W. 559
PartiesPUTNAM v. BUSSING et al.
Docket NumberNo. 43185.
Decision Date07 April 1936

221 Iowa 871
266 N.W. 559

PUTNAM
v.
BUSSING et al.

No. 43185.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1936.


Appeal from District Court, Adair County; Norman H. Hays, Judge.

This is a personal injury suit growing out of a collision of two automobiles, which collision occurred on United States Highway No. 6, at a point about four miles east of the town of Quick in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, on the 28th of May, 1932. From an order directing a verdict in favor of Mabel Bussing and rendering judgment against plaintiff for costs, as to her, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

[266 N.W. 560]

Charles Roe and L. M. Hall, both of Carson, and Waldo E. Don Carlos, of Greenfield, for appellant.

C. C. Putnam, of Des Moines, and Wilson & Kellam, of Greenfield, for appellees.


HAMILTON, Justice.

It is alleged in plaintiff's petition that the car in which the defendants were riding was owned by Mabel Bussing, and at the time of the collision was being driven by her husband, Thomas Bussing, with her consent. These allegations of the petition were put in issue by general denial. At the close of all the evidence, the court sustained a motion to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant Mabel Bussing for failure to prove ownership of car as alleged. The case went to the jury as to Thomas Bussing and plaintiff recovered as against him, and as to this neither party has appealed. Plaintiff filed a motion and application to vacate the verdict of the jury by direction of the court in favor of the defendant, Mabel Bussing, and for a new trial on the issues as to said defendant, which was overruled by the court, and from this order, and from each and every adverse order, ruling, and decision of the district court in the trial, the plaintiff has appealed.

The plaintiff assigns as error: (1) The action of the court in sustaining a motion to strike from the record of the evidence Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2, purporting to be certified copy of duplicate certificate of registration and certified copy of application for certificate of registration. (2) The refusal of the court, after the plaintiff had rested his case, and after sustaining said motion to strike, to reopen the case and to grant a postponement or continuance for at least twenty-four hours to permit the plaintiff to obtain and offer in evidence what he terms “duly certified, the authenticated copies other than Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2 heretofore offered”; the ground urged being that the court having at the beginning of the trial admitted the exhibit in evidence over the objection of defendants, counsel for plaintiff was led to believe that no other or further proof was necessary on this point, and hence was taken by surprise. (3) That the court erred in sustaining the motion to direct a verdict for the reason that notwithstanding the withdrawal of Exhibit A, there was still sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of ownership in Mabel Bussing.

[1][2] The trial took place in Adair county, some 100 miles from the place of defendants' residence in Newton, Jasper county, Iowa. It appears that neither of the defendants was present at the trial of the case. The evidence of ownership other than Exhibit A, which was stricken from the record, consists of the following: Deputy Sheriff Owen was called to the scene of the accident about 10 o'clock in the evening. He saw two cars that were disabled. The number on the license plate of what is referred to in the record as “the Bussing car” was 50-6784. He had some conversation with the occupants of the Bussing car and learned that the occupants were Mr. and Mrs. Bussing, and that Mr. Bussing was driving the car. The car was a Pontiac coupé. Testimony to the same effect was given by two other witnesses.

Does this make out a prima facie showing of ownership of the car in Mabel Bussing? We do not think so. All this evidence amounts to is that a Pontiac car with a Jasper county license plate was being driven by Thomas Bussing when this collision occurred, and that his wife, Mabel Bussing, was also in the car, and that they resided at Newton, Iowa, the county in which the car purported to be licensed, as evidenced by the number plate. And unless the court is required to take judicial notice that No. 50-6784 is a Jasper county, Iowa, number, there is no evidence that this car bore a Jasper county license plate, and this we may not do on proof of nothing save the figures, 50-6784. We think the trial court was right in holding that this was insufficient to make out a prima facie case of ownership in Mabel Bussing.

It was shown by the evidence of plaintiff that the original certificate of registration and the original application for license No. 50-6784, Jasper county, Iowa, was never in the possession or within the control of plaintiff. Plaintiff offered in evidence Exhibit A, pages 1 and 2, purporting to be a record of the registration of a certain Pontiac coupé. This was objected to for the reason that Exhibit A, marked page 1, was incompetent and no proper foundation had been laid; and Exhibit A, marked by the reporter as page 2, was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and no proper foundation had been laid. This objection was overruled, and the exhibit was admitted in evidence. At the

[266 N.W. 561]

close of all the evidence, the defendant Mabel Bussing moved the court to strike from the evidence “Exhibit A, page 1 and Exhibit A, page 2, for the reason that a proper foundation for the admission of said exhibits in evidence was not laid, and it was objected to at the time of the offer of said purported exhibits; that the official record was not duly certified, and was not certified by an officer having custody of the public records of the County Treasurer of Jasper County, Iowa.” The lower court sustained this motion to strike Exhibit A, page 1, for the reason, as stated by the court, “that there is not attached to the same any authentication, or certificate, or purported certificate or authentication, that it is a part of any official records of any public office in the State.” Exhibit A, page 2, was likewise stricken from the record upon the following grounds: “The Court is of the opinion that the authentication is such that it is impossible to state whether the instrument purports to be the original record itself or a copy thereof. If it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State v. Harris, No. 55702
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 16, 1974
    ...its court in an orderly, dignified and proper manner.'); Neiderhiser v. Neiderhiser, 254 Iowa 791, 119 N.W.2d 245; Putnam v. Bussing, 221 Iowa 871, 879, 266 N.W. 559, 563 ('A large measure of discretion must be lodged in the trial court in dealing with matters of this kind (granting or refu......
  • State v. McConnell, No. 53648
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 23, 1970
    ...the best evidence objection when offered in court proceedings. Barron v. Pigman, 250 Iowa 968, 973, 95 N.W.2d 726, 729; Putman v. Bussing, 221 Iowa 871, 877, 266 N.W. 559, From the record it appears no notice of intended testimony by Sheriff Gearhart was given and the defendant did not waiv......
2 cases
  • State v. Harris, No. 55702
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 16, 1974
    ...its court in an orderly, dignified and proper manner.'); Neiderhiser v. Neiderhiser, 254 Iowa 791, 119 N.W.2d 245; Putnam v. Bussing, 221 Iowa 871, 879, 266 N.W. 559, 563 ('A large measure of discretion must be lodged in the trial court in dealing with matters of this kind (granting or refu......
  • State v. McConnell, No. 53648
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 23, 1970
    ...the best evidence objection when offered in court proceedings. Barron v. Pigman, 250 Iowa 968, 973, 95 N.W.2d 726, 729; Putman v. Bussing, 221 Iowa 871, 877, 266 N.W. 559, From the record it appears no notice of intended testimony by Sheriff Gearhart was given and the defendant did not waiv......

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