Clark v. Town of Epworth

16 N.W. 219, 61 Iowa 750
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 15, 1883·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Day, Ch. 'J.

— I. One of the assignments of error is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. This assignment is not argued, and hence, as has been frequently held, it is waived.

II. No exception was taken to any ruling upon the trial, nor to any of the instructions given. No instruction was asked which was refused. The only question, therefore, which we can consider, is the sufficiency of the [751] evidence to support the verdict. It is claimed that the evidence does not warrant the finding that there was any negligence in the construction of the ditch, nor that the plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time the injury was sustained. Upon both of these points the evidence is conflicting. Upon neither is it so wanting as to warrant the conclusion that the verdict was the result of passion or prejudice. "We cannot, therefore, desturh the verdict. ' The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Clark v. Town of Epworth, 16 N.W. 219, 61 Iowa 750 (iowa 1883).

16 N.W. 219 (Clark v. Town of Epworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hull v. Independent School District
82 Iowa 686 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1890)