Wood v. Hallowell

• Decision Date: 19 March 1886
• Citation: 68 Iowa 377,27 N.W. 263
• Parties: WOOD AND OTHERS v. HALLOWELL AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

68 Iowa 377

27 N.W. 263

WOOD AND OTHERS

v.HALLOWELL AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 19, 1886.

Appeal from Lee circuit court.

Action to recover for intoxicating liquors. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs. The defendants appeal.D. N. Sprague and R. M. Marshall, for appellants.

Hagerman & McCrary, for appellees.

ADAMS, C. J.

The plaintiffs are doing business as partners in Louisville, Kentucky. As such they sold whisky to the defendant A. E. Hallowell, and they allege that the same was sold also to the defendant M. D. Hallowell, as a partner of A. E. Hallowell. The defendants reside in Keokuk, Iowa. The order for whisky was forwarded from Keokuk to the plaintiffs, at Louisville, by one Mills, who was acting as the plaintiffs' agent. The defendants averred in their answer that the whisky was sold in violation of the laws of Iowa, and the defendant M. D. Hallowell denied that she was a partner of A. E. Hallowell, and denied that the plaintiffs sold her any whisky.

We do not find anything in the abstract denominated an “assignment of errors.” We are inclined to think, however, that the defendants intended to make an assignment of errors, and shall treat as such a paper which was filed in the following words:

“BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

(1) The court erred in refusing to give instructions eight and nine, in page twenty-four. (2) The verdict of the jury was clearly against the evidence and the law given by the court. Jury rendered a verdict of $338 against A. E. & M. D. Hallowell.”

We cannot consider errors assigned, but not argued, nor errors not assigned with sufficient exactness. No allusion is made in argument to the refusal of the court to give the eighth instruction asked by the defendants, and the error assigned upon such refusal must be deemed waived.

The second assigned error is too general. The ninth instruction asked by the defendants, and refused by the court, is in these words: “The laws of Kentucky regarding the sale of intoxicants is presumed to be the same as the laws of Iowa, unless proof has been introduced to show that their statute was different, and the sale of liquors in Kentucky would be presumed as illegal.” We see no error in refusing this instruction. The defendants did not plead that the sale was made in Kentucky, and in violation of the laws of Kentucky. On the other hand, they pleaded that the sale was made in Iowa. Besides, the statutes of Kentucky...