Barnes v. McDaniels

Supreme Court of Iowa

Barnes v. McDaniels

35 Iowa 381

DecidedDecember 11, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Iowa 381 (Barnes v. McDaniels) 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

Barnes v. McDaniels, 35 Iowa 381 (iowa 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, J.

At the close of the trial, the court instructed the jury, among other things, that the claims for damages, set up as a set-off by the defendant in his answer, were not denied, and that they were, therefore, to be taken as true. After the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, the counsel for the plaintiff each made affidavit, in substance, that they had prepared a reply in denial of the defendant’s claims for damages and set-off as alleged in his answer, and had, before the commencement of the trial, laid the same on the clerk’s desk for filing and called his attention to it, and they supposed and believed it was filed, until after the jury was sent out to consider of their verdict. Upon [382]*382this showing the court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. We cannot say there was any error in so doing. See Newell v. Sanford, 10 Iowa, 396; Alger v. Merritt, 16 id. 121; Caffrey v. Groome, 10 id. 548; Head & Metzer v. Langworthy, 15 id. 235; Schumaker v. Gelpcke, 11 id. 81; State v. Tomlinson, id. 401; Jewett & Lovejoy v. Miller, 12 id. 85; Templin v. Iowa City, 14 id. 59 ; Baker v. Mygatt, id. 131; Wilhelmi v. Thorington, id. 537; Shepherd v. Brenton, 15 id. 81.

Affirmed.

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

Cole, J.

At the close of the trial, the court instructed the jury, among other things, that the claims for damages, set up as a set-off by the defendant in his answer, were not denied, and that they were, therefore, to be taken as true. After the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, the counsel for the plaintiff each made affidavit, in substance, that they had prepared a reply in denial of the defendant’s claims for damages and set-off as alleged in his answer, and had, before the commencement of the trial, laid the same on the clerk’s desk for filing and called his attention to it, and they supposed and believed it was filed, until after the jury was sent out to consider of their verdict. Upon [382]*382this showing the court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. We cannot say there was any error in so doing. See Newell v. Sanford, 10 Iowa, 396; Alger v. Merritt, 16 id. 121; Caffrey v. Groome, 10 id. 548; Head & Metzer v. Langworthy, 15 id. 235; Schumaker v. Gelpcke, 11 id. 81; State v. Tomlinson, id. 401; Jewett & Lovejoy v. Miller, 12 id. 85; Templin v. Iowa City, 14 id. 59 ; Baker v. Mygatt, id. 131; Wilhelmi v. Thorington, id. 537; Shepherd v. Brenton, 15 id. 81.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Iowa 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-mcdaniels-iowa-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack