Randall v. Ditch
| Decision Date | 13 April 1904 |
| Parties | M. L. RANDALL, Appellant, v. W. V. DITCH AND WILL LOCKE, Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Palo Alto District Court.--HON. W. B. QUARTON, Judge.
ACTION at law to recover the purchase price of certain hogs sold and delivered the defendants. Trial to a jury, directed verdict for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Thomas O'Conner for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Among other things, the defendants denied that they purchased the hogs from the plaintiff, and specifically averred that they purchased the same from plaintiff and one Thos. Vandicar, who it is claimed owned the property at the time of the sale. Plaintiff's evidence showed the following facts with reference to this issue: Plaintiff, Randall, was the tenant of Vandicar, who owned the land on which the hogs were raised. By the terms of their lease Vandicar was to have two-fifths thereof. Plaintiff was raising considerable grain upon the land, and he proposed to Vandicar that he (plaintiff) would buy some hogs, feed the grain to them, and give Vandicar two-fifth of the animals, "the same as he was to give him of the grain on the place." This proposition was accepted, and it was also arranged that plaintiff was to sell the hogs when fit for market, and give Vandicar two-fifths of what the hogs sold for. The animals which defendants purchased were raised pursuant to this arrangement. Plaintiff's testimony also showed that he had paid two-fifths of the proceeds of the hogs sold to defendants, and had had a full settlement with Vandicar therefor. Vandicar was also a witness for the plaintiff, and he testified to practically the same arrangement, and that he was to have two-fifths of the proceeds of the hogs when sold. This witness was also asked as to whether or not Randall had paid him two-fifths of the proceeds of the hogs sold to the defendants, and as to whether or not he claimed any interest in the proceeds of the sale of the hogs made to the defendants; but the trial court on objections of the defendants, would not permit him to answer. Objection to a question tending to show a full and complete settlement between plaintiff and Vandicar of all matters growing out of the leasing of Vandicar's premises was also sustained. These rulings to which we have just referred were manifestly erroneous. Vandicar was not at any time claiming any interest in the hogs themselves. His claim was to the proceeds thereof, and, if this claim was satisfied by the plaintiff, it is clear that he (plaintiff) had the right to recover...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chariton Feed and Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 83-983
...1324, 1328-29, 131 N.W.2d 524, 526-27 (1964); Johnson v. Watland, 208 Iowa 1370, 1372, 227 N.W. 410, 411 (1929); Randall v. Ditch, 123 Iowa 582, 584-85, 99 N.W. 190, 191 (1904). The only decision relating to leases from any jurisdiction found in trial court's decision is Malvern Nat'l Bank ......
-
Wagner v. Buttles
...89 Cal. 526, 26 Pac. 1087;Brown v. Jaquette, 94 Pa. 113, 39 Am. Rep. 770;Williams v. Rogers, 110 Mich. 418, 68 N. W. 240;Randall v. Ditch, 123 Iowa, 582, 99 N. W. 190;Blue v. Leathers, 15 Ill. 31;Shrum v. Simpson, 155 Ind. 160, 57 N. E. 708, 49 L. R. A. 792;State v. Sanders, 52 S. C. 580, 3......
-
Kent v. Cobb
...Ham et al., 31 N.Y. 321; Omaha & Grant S. & R. Co. v. Rucker, supra; Garrett v. Pub. Co., 61 Neb. 541, 85 N.W. 537; Randall v. Ditch and Locke, 123 Iowa 582, 99 N.W. 190. of the acts of the wife in and about the business of the husband was competent as tending to show that she was a partner......
- Crawford v. Meis