Maxwell v. Gibbs

Supreme Court of Iowa

Maxwell v. Gibbs

32 Iowa 32

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 23, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 Iowa 32 (Maxwell v. Gibbs) 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

Maxwell v. Gibbs, 32 Iowa 32 (iowa 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Cole, J.

^onT^ror jSmc°6Ut pre" The only questions made in the case arise upon the instructions; it being conceded that under the conflicting testimony in the case, the jury might reasonably find the contract and claim as stated by the plaintiffs.

*33 The court refused to instruct the jury “ that the plaintiffs cannot recover unless they have proved the agreement as alleged in the petition; and, having alleged a special contract of bailment, cannot recover upon any other.” This refusal is assigned as error. If it was error to refuse it, the error was abundantly cured by the giving of the subsequent instructions. Eor instance, the court did, in the second paragraph, instruct the jury “ that the burden of proof of the issue is upon the plaintiffs, and they cannot recover unless they Time sustained the allegations of thejpetition'bj a preponderance of the proof.”

s. partnership : estoppel The defendants also asked the court to instruct the jury “ that they were not liable unless plaintiffs have shown that the'agreement in relation to the team was made by the defendants as copartners.” The court modified it by adding, “ that if they held themselves out to the world as partners, and the team was hired under such circumstances as to lead plaintiffs to believe them such, they would be estopped from denying the partnership.” It does not appear to us that any agreement or citation of authorities is necessary to establish the correctness of the modification. The proposition .is sound and elemental.

Again, the defendants asked the court to instruct the jury, “ if the horse died of disease, the defendants are not liable;” which the court modified and gave, by adding, “ unless the disease was produced by their wrongful act.” Surely there was no error in this. .

In view of the pleadings and the conceded proofs (the evidence is not in the record), we see no error or conflict in the instructions of the court, or in any of the rulings.

•Affirmed..

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

Cole, J.

^onT^ror jSmc°6Ut pre" The only questions made in the case arise upon the instructions; it being conceded that under the conflicting testimony in the case, the jury might reasonably find the contract and claim as stated by the plaintiffs.

*33 The court refused to instruct the jury “ that the plaintiffs cannot recover unless they have proved the agreement as alleged in the petition; and, having alleged a special contract of bailment, cannot recover upon any other.” This refusal is assigned as error. If it was error to refuse it, the error was abundantly cured by the giving of the subsequent instructions. Eor instance, the court did, in the second paragraph, instruct the jury “ that the burden of proof of the issue is upon the plaintiffs, and they cannot recover unless they Time sustained the allegations of thejpetition'bj a preponderance of the proof.”

s. partnership : estoppel The defendants also asked the court to instruct the jury “ that they were not liable unless plaintiffs have shown that the'agreement in relation to the team was made by the defendants as copartners.” The court modified it by adding, “ that if they held themselves out to the world as partners, and the team was hired under such circumstances as to lead plaintiffs to believe them such, they would be estopped from denying the partnership.” It does not appear to us that any agreement or citation of authorities is necessary to establish the correctness of the modification. The proposition .is sound and elemental.

Again, the defendants asked the court to instruct the jury, “ if the horse died of disease, the defendants are not liable;” which the court modified and gave, by adding, “ unless the disease was produced by their wrongful act.” Surely there was no error in this. .

In view of the pleadings and the conceded proofs (the evidence is not in the record), we see no error or conflict in the instructions of the court, or in any of the rulings.

•Affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Iowa 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-v-gibbs-iowa-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack