Sheik v. Hobson
| Decision Date | 11 June 1884 |
| Citation | 19 N.W. 875,64 Iowa 146 |
| Parties | SHEIK v. HOBSON, ADM'R. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Clayton circuit court.
Action for damages in account of slanderous words spoken of plaintiff by defendant's intestate. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,000. Plaintiff appeals.J. W. Rogers & Son, for appellant.
Murdock & Larkin, Ainsworth & Waterman, Noble & Updegraff, and Cyrus Wellington, for appellee.
The action was originally brought against Henry Rush, but during its pendency he died, and defendant, Hobson, administrator of his estate, was substituted as defendant. The alleged slanderous words imputed to plaintiff a want of chastity. They are alleged to have been spoken in the presence of plaintiff's husband, and were to the effect that Rush had had sexual intercourse with plaintiff.
At the trial plaintiff asked the court to give the following instructions:
The court refused to give these instructions, but told the jury that “damages on account of maliciously speaking the words, or, in other words, exemplary damages, are not to be given.” Error is assigned by plaintiff on the giving of this instruction, and the refusal to give those asked. The question raised by the assignment is whether exemplary or punitory damages may be awarded against the personal representative of a deceased wrong-doer. There is no doubt but, at common law, the remedy for an injury such as plaintiff complains of determines upon the death of the wrong-doer. 1 Chit. Pl. 89. But under our statute (Code, § 2525) all causes of action survive, “and may be brought, notwithstanding the death of the person entitled or liable to the same.” Plaintiff's position is that, under this section, the right is preserved to her to have damages of this character assessed on account of the wrongful and malicious act by which she has suffered, notwithstanding the death of the one who committed the act. But we think the position is not sound. It cannot be said, in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hofer v. Lavender
...237 Iowa 513, 21 N.W.2d 287 (1946). Each of these cases cite the previous Iowa case as authority, ending up with Sheik v. Hobson, 64 Iowa 146, 19 N.W. 875 (1884). In that case, the Iowa Supreme Court interpreted Iowa Code § 2525 (1873), a predecessor to the current Iowa Survival Statute. Th......
-
Wagner v. State
...as will fully compensate him for the injury sustained." In re Vajgrt , 801 N.W.2d 570, 573 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Sheik v. Hobson , 64 Iowa 146, 148, 19 N.W. 875, 875 (1884) ). It is difficult to see, therefore, that the unavailability of punitive damages would render a remedy inadequate in m......
-
In the Matter of The EState Vajgrt
...v. Rahm, 249 N.W.2d 630, 632 (Iowa 1977); Stevenson v. Stoufer, 237 Iowa 513, 517, 21 N.W.2d 287, 288 (1946); Sheik v. Hobson, 64 Iowa 146, 147–48, 19 N.W. 875, 875–76 (1884). Upon our review, we are not persuaded that we should reconsider these precedents. Therefore, we affirm the judgment......
-
Olson-Roti v. Kilcoin, No. 22244
...At virtually the same time, the Supreme Court of Iowa was asked to decide the very question that is now before us. In Sheik v. Hobson, 64 Iowa 146, 19 N.W. 875 (Iowa 1884), the court held that a claim of slander against a decedent defendant survived his demise and compensatory damages could......