Howe v. Mason
This text of 12 Iowa 202 (Howe v. Mason) 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.
Opinion
Appellants position is sustained by the following authorities which we cite, and without repeating the arguments made, conclude that the testimony should have been received. Hatfield v. Towsley, 3 G. Greene, 584; Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johns. 282; S. C. 9 Ib. 395; Vanderheyder v. Young, 11 Ib. 150; Jenkins v. Waldron, Ib. 114; Linford v. Fitzroy, 13 Ad. & Ell. 240; Chickering v. Robininson, 3 Cush. 543; Tyter v. Alford, 38 Maine 530; Pratt v. Gardener, 2 Cush. 63; Bullitt v. Clement, 16 B. Monr. 193; 1 Chit. Pl, 68; 2 Hilliard on Torts, Oh. 19, p. 311.
The testimony offered tended to show due care and diligence, and as a consequence, the absence of negligence.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 Iowa 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-mason-iowa-1861.