Avery Planter Co. v. Martz

Supreme Court of Iowa

Avery Planter Co. v. Martz

65 N.W. 989, 96 Iowa 747

DecidedJanuary 24, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 65 N.W. 989 (Avery Planter Co. v. Martz) 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

Avery Planter Co. v. Martz, 65 N.W. 989, 96 Iowa 747 (iowa 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Given, J

1. This case is submitted upon what purports to-be appellant’s abstract of the record,'appellant’-s argument, and appellee’s denial of said abstract. The abstract is not stated to he a full and complete abstract, and “appellee denies that appellant’s [748]*748abstract of the record is a full and complete or correct abstract -of the record and evidence in said cause.” The errors assigned and discussed -by appellant involve an examination of the evidence. As the abstract is denied, and is not stated to be a correct aJbstraet, we cannot, under the rules, consider the evidence as therein presented. Whether, notwithstanding appellee’s denial, the evidence might be considered if the abstract had been properly certified we do not determine. We simply say that, being denied, and not being certified, it cannot be considered. It follows that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

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

Given, J

1. This case is submitted upon what purports to-be appellant’s abstract of the record,'appellant’-s argument, and appellee’s denial of said abstract. The abstract is not stated to he a full and complete abstract, and “appellee denies that appellant’s [748]*748abstract of the record is a full and complete or correct abstract -of the record and evidence in said cause.” The errors assigned and discussed -by appellant involve an examination of the evidence. As the abstract is denied, and is not stated to be a correct aJbstraet, we cannot, under the rules, consider the evidence as therein presented. Whether, notwithstanding appellee’s denial, the evidence might be considered if the abstract had been properly certified we do not determine. We simply say that, being denied, and not being certified, it cannot be considered. It follows that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.W. 989, 96 Iowa 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avery-planter-co-v-martz-iowa-1896.