Aikin, Lambert & Co. v. Kirkland

Supreme Court of Iowa

Aikin, Lambert & Co. v. Kirkland

66 Iowa 425

DecidedJune 8, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Iowa 425 (Aikin, Lambert & Co. v. Kirkland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aikin, Lambert & Co. v. Kirkland, 66 Iowa 425 (iowa 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevebs, J.

No objectionis made to tbe instructions or any other ruling of the court, except the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence. The evidence is conflicting. If the jury believed the witnesses for the plaintiffs, the verdict should have been for them. It is evident, however, they, did not do so, but based their verdict on the defendant’s evidence; and, as the court overruled the motion for a new trial, we cannot interfere..

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Seevebs, J.

No objectionis made to tbe instructions or any other ruling of the court, except the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence. The evidence is conflicting. If the jury believed the witnesses for the plaintiffs, the verdict should have been for them. It is evident, however, they, did not do so, but based their verdict on the defendant’s evidence; and, as the court overruled the motion for a new trial, we cannot interfere..

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Iowa 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aikin-lambert-co-v-kirkland-iowa-1885.