Walker v. Puck

• Decision Date: 06 April 1943
• Docket Number: 46221.
• Citation: 8 N.W.2d 701,236 Iowa 686
• Parties: WALKER v. PUCK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

8 N.W.2d 701

236 Iowa 686

WALKER v. PUCK.

No. 46221.

Supreme Court of Iowa

April 6, 1943

Douglas Rogers, of Manning, for appellant.

Powers & Gilchrist, of Denison, for appellee.

HALE Justice.

The only question in this proceeding is as to the ownership of 4 window frames with their covering, 1 windmill pump with cylinder pipe and rod, 1 hand pump, 1 pitcher nosed pump, 54 steel posts, and approximately 240 rods of barbed wire in rolls, awarded to plaintiff. Damages and possession of other articles than those named herein were also claimed. The court awarded only the above articles to the plaintiff, dismissed her claim for damages and awarded the remaining property to defendant. Since plaintiff did not appeal, we are concerned only with defendant's claim to ownership of the property herein specified. Its value is estimated by plaintiff at about $75 and by the defendant at about half that amount.

The first of the propositions relied upon for reversal is that the judgment rendered by the trial court is not sustained by the evidence. If so sustained, there is little need for us to inquire further, since this was a law action.

On trial it was agreed that the plaintiff became the owner of an undivided one-sixth of the land in 1934, that she afterwards increased her holdings to one-third by deed from her mother and heirs of a deceased brother, subject, to the life estate of the mother. She further increased her holdings to an undivided two-thirds by deed from a brother, and became the sole owner of said real estate by deed from her sister in 1941, the life estate of the mother having terminated prior to the last deed.

There was testimony that prior to acquiring the final interest in the farm, T. V. Walker, husband of plaintiff, talked with the tenant about the farm and advised him that Mrs. Walker would become the owner, and that defendant talked about the place and buildings, but at the time said nothing about any claim to ownership of anything on the premises. There was no evidence of any agreement for removal of any of the property involved, but Henry W. Brandhorst, who sold his interest to his sister, the plaintiff, testified that he had never agreed with nor given permission to the defendant for removal of the fences or other material from the farm. And plaintiff also so testified. At some time all the property was attached to the farm, but none of it was brought on the place after the plaintiff acquired sole ownership. There was also testimony that prior to November 24, 1941, defendant at no time claimed of plaintiff or her husband any of the property involved herein.

Plaintiff introduced the lease in evidence, to which objection was made, and the overruling of such objection is made a claim of error herein. The lease was admissible. It was the basis of defendant's right to occupy the premises. It was in the usual form of such instruments and even if not admissible would be without prejudice. The only objection on trial was that it was incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not tending to show ownership of the property.

The defendant was a witness on his own behalf, denying his intention to attach the property permanently. Testimony of this witness shows further that the posts and wire had been used for fencing. Defendant's wife testified much to the same effect.

We have briefly referred to part of the testimony in the case in considering the question of whether or not there was evidence upon...