Brooks v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen

88 N.W. 1089, 115 Iowa 588
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedFebruary 6, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 88 N.W. 1089 (Brooks v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen) 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
Brooks v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen, 88 N.W. 1089, 115 Iowa 588 (iowa 1902).

Opinion

McClain, J.

The defense which was sustained by the jury, seems to have been that of suicide, the evidence in support of which was circumstantial. This court interferes reluctantly with the action of the lower court in granting a new trial. In view of the fact that the trial court has heard the evidence as given, and has had opportunities to observe the effect of the evidence, it should exercise greater freedom in granting new trials for insufficiency of the evidence than will be exercised by this court on appeal. Dewey v. Railroad Co., 31 Iowa, 373; Cottage Organ Co. v. Caldwell, 94 Iowa, 584; Kern v. May, 92 Iowa, 674. This court will not interfere with the discretion of the lower court in such cases [589]*589unless it appears that there has been a clear case of abuse of legal discretion. Refrigerator Co. v. Kelly, 95 Iowa, 189. While in this case there was evidence, properly admitted, to sustain defendant’s allegation of suicide, the lower court, we think, may properly have found that in some particular respect there was lacking an essential link to connect this evidence with the fact of death in such way as to constitute any proof whatever that suicide was committed. In view of the fact that the case will be retried, we do‘ not deem it advisable to point out the specific weakness in defendant’s evidence, but it is enough to say that in some respects the court might reasonably have thought it totally insufficient. The function of the court with reference to the evidence is not fully and completely discharged when it determines the admissibility of the different items of evidence offered. It may still look into the whole case to see whether these items of evidence together constitute any substantial proof of the fact sought to- be established. — Aeeirmed.

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

Related

Henrich v. Oppedal
81 N.W.2d 429 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1957)
Hall v. City of West Des Moines
62 N.W.2d 734 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)
Burke v. Reiter
42 N.W.2d 907 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1950)
McCollough v. Lee
235 Iowa 753 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
In Re Estate of Hollis
16 N.W.2d 599 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
In Re Estate of Younggren
280 N.W. 556 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)
Christensen v. Farmers Savings Bank
255 N.W. 520 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Morton v. Equitable Life Insurance
254 N.W. 325 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Kelley v. Gardner
238 N.W. 470 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Rupp v. Kohn
232 N.W. 174 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Blakely v. Cebelka
203 N.W. 19 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Peterson v. Phillips Coal Co.
175 Iowa 223 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Porter v. Madrid State Bank
136 N.W. 666 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 N.W. 1089, 115 Iowa 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-brotherhood-of-american-yeomen-iowa-1902.