Shoemaker v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 13 July 1905 |
| Citation | 104 N.W. 503,128 Iowa 488 |
| Parties | CLARENCE SHOEMAKER, by his next friend, A. H. Shoemaker, v. D. W. JACKSON, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Montgomery District Court.--HON. A. B. THORNELL, Judge.
ACTION for damages resulted in judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
Reversed.
J. M Junkin and Ralph Pringle, for appellant.
Beeson & Pomeroy, for appellee.
One Weyer and plaintiff were walking along a street of Villisca in the afternoon of July 31, 1903, when defendant requested the latter to come up to his office. He did so, and when both were inside defendant locked the door and administered to plaintiff a severe whipping. He had provided a whip for this purpose some time previous, having deliberately decided to have Weyer arrested and to chastise Shoemaker. To the petition claiming damages the defendant pleaded certain facts in mitigation and also a counterclaim. The only rulings complained of are the refusal of the court to submit the issue as to mitigation and the rejection of certain evidence. The latter will be first considered. It appears that Weyer then twenty years of age, had been paying his attentions to defendant's sixteen year old daughter, and that the plaintiff, a youth of 18 summers, was trying to court the niece of a near neighbor. The boys had seen these girls at this neighbor's house in the afternoon of July 29th, and in the evening a witness testified to having observed plaintiff hand defendant's daughter a piece of paper when the girls were at defendant's home, where they stopped that night. After the family had retired, defendant was awakened by whistling and heavy walking on the pavement. This continued some time, when he noticed a light had been struck in the girls' room. He then arose, and went downstairs to the front porch. The noise ceased at once, and he returned to his couch. This was repeated. The third time he noticed a person get in range with the window in the girls' room, whistle and stamp, and by going about the house he found such person to be Weyer, who, after being scolded left. Immediately afterwards the plaintiff stepped from behind a tree, and in the conversation which followed stated that they were watching to see that other boys were not with the girls, admitted that he had been instrumental in effecting a reconciliation between Weyer and defendant's daughter, declared that he did not know of defendant's objections to Weyer, and promised not to interfere farther. A ladder, which had been placed by somebody at the window of the girls' room, was then removed, and defendant retired. He was up again at 4 o'clock a. m., only to find the young women gone. He immediately began search and after telephoning to neighboring towns and ascertaining that Weyer had left the livery stable with a team at about 2 o'clock in the morning, met plaintiff as he was returning with said team. In response to inquiry the plaintiff informed defendant that he had left Weyer and defendant's daughter at Nodaway. Defendant, with the town marshal, left at once for that place, but found they had not been there. He then telephoned to Villisca, and was advised that they were at one Himiller's a mile and one-half southeast of Villisca. He then drove there, and learned that they had left after getting breakfast. The search was continued by the party until noon, when the marshal sent for men and teams to assist. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon Weyer and the daughter were discovered, and the latter returned to her home.
After the facts as recited had been detailed, the following question was propounded to the defendant: "Now, doctor I will ask you the condition your daughter was in when brought home, as to her clothes being soiled, and her being sick, and how long that sickness continued?" This was objected to on the ground that it had not been made to appear that plaintiff caused or contributed to the injury of her clothing or the physical condition of the girl. The objection was sustained, whereupon counsel for defendant stated that he proposed to show that defendant's daughter was strong and healthy prior to this escapade, but on her return she was ill, weakened, and confined to her bed for a week under a physician's care, and had since suffered from the nervous shock; that her clothing was soiled and torn; and that he proposed to show the value of her services lost thereby, and the cost of medical attendance and of repairing her clothing. Conceding all this, the court held that such damages were not the proximate consequence of what plaintiff had done. In this ruling we cannot concur. The clothing furnished his minor daughter was the property of the defendant, and he was entitled to recover for any injury thereto which resulted directly from plaintiff's act. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial