Votaw v. Diehl
| Decision Date | 30 January 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 305,62 Iowa 676 |
| Parties | VOTAW AND ANOTHER v. DIEHL AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
1. A rehearing was granted in this case at a former time, and it has again been submitted upon the argument of counsel. We entertained no doubt upon the questions decided in the foregoing opinion, except those involved in the third and fourth points, upon a careful reconsideration of the abstract, and the application of the rule recently settled by this court, which controls in determining whether evidence objected to is made to appear with sufficient clearness in order to authorize us to determine its admissibility. The rule is stated by Mr. Justice SEEVERS in these words: Mitchell v. Harcourt, 17 N. W. REP. 581.
The abstract shows the examination of the witness Patterson touching the excluded evidence in the following language. Nothing further relating thereto is found in the abstract: ” What that conversation was, or even what it was about, and whether it related to a matter in issue, cannot be determined or even inferred from this quotation from the abstract. Under the foregoing rule we cannot exercise presumptions as to the character and substance of the evidence, and cannot attempt to determine its admissibility.
2. The evidence referred to in the fourth part of our former opinion is, with less certainty and explicitness, alluded to in the abstract. We quote all that is found therein relating to the evidence and ruling of the courts in question: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Abild Const. Co.
...In Re Repp's Estate, 241 Iowa 190, 40 N.W.2d 607, 610, we quote with approval from Votaw & Hartshorn v. Diehl, 62 Iowa 676, 13 N.W. 757, 18 N.W. 305, as follows: 'The true rule, we think, is that when it is apparent upon the face of the question asked the witness what the evidence sought to......
-
Lemke v. Mueller
...Estate, 241 Iowa 190, (195), 40 N.W.2d 607, 610, we quote with approval from Votaw & Hartshorn v. Diehl, 62 Iowa 676, (680) 13 N.W. 757, 18 N.W. 305, as follows: 'The true rule, we think, is that, when it is apparent upon the face of the question asked the witness what the evidence sought t......
-
Jacobs v. City of Cedar Rapids
...of the witness to the question propounded.” Whitehead v. Mathaway, 85 Ind. at 86. And see Votaw v. Diehl, 62 Iowa, 678, 13 N. W. 757, 18 N. W. 305. The most we may do is to assume defendant expected an answer within range of the issue to which the question was advised, i. e., something that......
-
Am. Express Co. v. Des Moines Nat. Bank
...thus begs the question. It has never been cited in any case where its rule has been applied. The Votaw Case, 62 Iowa, 680, 13 N. W. 757, 18 N. W. 305, cites it, but refuses review, though the question asked in it is more suggestive of the answer which might be expected than is the one in Mi......