Thuman v. Monroe County Truck & Implement Co.
Citation | 255 N.W.2d 331 |
Decision Date | 29 June 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 2-58461,2-58461 |
Parties | Marvin THUMAN, Receiver for the Property of Anna and Henry DeJong and Ottumwa Production Credit Association, Appellees, v. MONROE COUNTY TRUCK & IMPLEMENT COMPANY, a Corporation, and Bernice Fitzsimmons, Executor under the Last Will and Testament of Morris Fitzsimmons, Deceased, Appellants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Vincent E. Johnson, Montezuma, for appellants.
Bailey C. Webber, Ottumwa, for appellees.
Heard before MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.
This case arises out of an alleged wrongful conversion of security pledged by Anna DeJong and Henry DeJong to Ottumwa Production Credit Association as security for a loan. The property was later taken by Monroe County Truck & Implement Company under claim of a prior lien. Subsequently, Marvin Thuman was appointed receiver of the property of Anna DeJong and Henry DeJong. This litigation ensued to settle the respective claims of plaintiffs and defendants to this property. The case was tried to the court as an action at law. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs for $7,925. Defendants appeal, and we affirm.
Only two issues are raised. They concern (1) the admission of certain evidence said to have been received in violation of § 622.4, The Code, and (2) a claim that the property in question was not sufficiently identified.
I. The first alleged error deals with the trial court's ruling certain evidence was not in violation of the dead man's statute (§ 622.4). The statute is here set out:
We have limited the application of the dead man's statute to its precise terms and have declined, along with most other courts, to extend it by judicial construction. See Laing v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 236 N.W.2d 317, 319-320 (Iowa 1975); Carlson v. Bankers Trust Co., 242 Iowa 1207, 1213-1214, 50 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1951).
During trial Marvin Thuman, plaintiff herein, was examined about a conversation he had with Morris Fitzsimmons. The purpose of the conversation was to show the farm equipment over which this dispute arose was in the possession of Monroe County Truck & Implement Company, one of the defendants.
At the time of trial Morris Fitzsimmons was dead. Bernice Fitzsimmons, executor of his estate, was a co-defendant along with Monroe County Truck & Implement Company.
Proper objection was made under § 622.4 to the testimony of Marvin Thuman concerning his conversation with Morris Fitzsimmons. The trial court at first sustained the objection. Later the ruling was modified to permit the testimony to come in but limiting its application to the claim against Monroe County Truck & Implement Company. As to the claim against the estate of Morris Fitzsimmons, the objection was sustained.
This ruling was correct. The general rule is that the statute does not apply to conversations and transactions with an agent because he is not one of those made incompetent to testify under the statutory language. It makes no difference whether the agent or the other party is deceased. The survivor of the two is competent.
In Laing, supra, 236 N.W.2d at 319, an agent was permitted to testify to a conversation on behalf of his principal even though the other party was dead. There we said:
We have applied the same rule in cases in which the agent is the deceased party. State Bank of Dexter v. Fairholm, 201 Iowa 1094, 1097, 206 N.W. 143, 144 (1925) ( ); Blachly v. Newburn, 179 Iowa 790, 801-802, 162 N.W. 36, 39-40 (1917) ( ); Stiles v. Beed, 151 Iowa 86, 96-98, 130 N.W. 376, 380 (1911) ( ); Barnett v. First Nat'l Bank of Chariton, 148 Iowa 667, 669, 127 N.W. 1012, 1013 (1910) ( ); Jamison v. Auxier, 145 Iowa 654, 655, 124 N.W. 606 (1910) ( ). See 3 Jones on Evidence (6th ed. Gard. 1972), §§ 20:34, 20:35, pp. 669, 673; Ladd, The Dead Man Statute: Some Further Observations and a Legislative Proposal, 26 Iowa L.Rev. 207, 220 (1941); Comment, 11 Iowa L.Rev. 287-289 (1926).
Morris Fitzsimmons was acting as agent for Monroe County Truck & Implement Company at the time of the conversation in question. The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Horn
...of the statute to its precise terms and have not expanded it by judicial construction. See, e. g., Thuman v. Monroe County Truck and Implement Co., 255 N.W.2d 331, 332 (Iowa 1977); Laing v. State Farm Fire Casualty Co., 236 N.W.2d 317, 319 (Iowa 1975). Also, we have been unable to find any ......
-
State v. Gibb
......Atty. Gen., Ruth Harkin, Story County Atty., and Richard O. Parker, Asst. Story County Atty., ...Harms Implement Co., 270 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 1978); State v. Frazer, 267 ...Monroe, 236 N.W.2d 24, 32 (Iowa 1975), the substance was Schedule ......