Smith v. Wagaman
| Decision Date | 04 April 1882 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 713,58 Iowa 11 |
| Parties | SMITH v. WAGAMAN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Marshall district court.
Action upon a promissory note purporting to be executed by the defendant and one Triplett. The defendant denies the execution of the note upon his part. There was a trial by jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.James Allison, for appellant.
L. R. Root, for appellee.
1. The note was given for money borrowed of the plaintiff by Triplett. At the time the note was delivered to the plaintiff it bore the name of the defendant, John Wagaman, as joint maker with Triplett, but Wagaman's name did not purport to be written by himself. The note bears the name of John Wagaman, with a cross appended as for his mark. For the purpose of showing that the name was written with Wagaman's authority, and that the mark was made by him, the plaintiff was asked, when a witness upon the stand, what Triplett said about Wagaman's signing the note at the time he, Triplett, delivered the note to plaintiff. To this the defendant objected and the court sustained the objection.
It is contended by the plaintiff that it was competent to show what Triplett said in regard to Wagaman's signing the note, because what Triplett said at that time was a part of the res gestœ. But in our opinion the doctrine of res gestœ does not go that far. If any question had been raised as to the purpose or effect of Triplett's act in handing the note to the plaintiff, then what Triplett said about it might have been shown as giving character to the act. But the note, beyond question, was delivered as a promissory note. Whether Wagaman signed it or not was a distinct and independent question, and to allow the plaintiff to testify as to what Triplett said about it would have been clearly an admission of hearsay evidence, and the testimony was, we think, properly excluded. Binns v. State, 57 Ind. 46;Felt v. Amidon, 43 Wis. 467.
2. Upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff he was asked what his business was, and about how many notes he had which he had taken for money which he had loaned. To this question the plaintiff objected, and the objection was overruled. He then stated that he loaned money, and that he probably had from 50 to 100 notes. He contends that it was not proper to elicit from him such testimony, because it was not in proper cross-examination, immaterial, and well calculated to prejudice him, the business of loaning money being regarded by many as not a reputable business.
The plaintiff had testified in regard to what Wagaman said about the note when the same was shown to him. The object of asking the question objected to appears to have been, from what followed, to show that the plaintiff had so many notes that his memory could not be implicitly trusted as to what Wagaman said about the note. In this view it appears to us that the question was in proper cross-examination. But aside from this view we should not be prepared to say that the plaintiff was prejudiced. The business of...
To continue reading
Request your trial