Mowry v. Chaney

43 Iowa 609
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 17, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 43 Iowa 609 (Mowry v. Chaney) 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
Mowry v. Chaney, 43 Iowa 609 (iowa 1876).

Opinion

Adams, J.

The husband may recover for loss of services of his wife. Tuttle v. The C., R. I. & P. R. Co., 42 Iowa, 518.

In this case, however, the petition shows that the plaintiff’s wife was confined in child-birth, and died in three days after the treatment complained of. So far as the petition shows, it does not appear that the plaintiff sustained any damage in the loss of his wife’s services by reason of the treatment.

That the plaintiff might recover for the loss of her society between the time she received the injury and the time of her death, seems well settled. McKinney v. The Western Stage Co., 4 Iowa, 420.

Ve think, too, the plaintiff should have been allowed to recover for expenses made necessary by the defendant’s treatment.

It is claimed by the appellee that the plaintiff’s allegation in regard to expenses is not sufficiently specific. But we do not think the evidence could have been properly excluded upon that ground, and it is not claimed that it was excluded upon that ground. If the allegation was not sufficiently specific to enable the defendant to defend, he could on motion have obtained an order that it be made more so.

II. The damages resulting from the death of the deceased were damages to her estate, and a right of action therefor exists only in favor of the administrator of her estate. Sherman v. The Western Stage Co., 24 Iowa, 515; Revision, § 4111.

So far as these damages are concerned, the ruling of the District Court was correct; but for error in excluding evidence of damages in loss of society and in expense, the case is

Eevebsed.

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

Related

Weitl v. Moes
311 N.W.2d 259 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1981)
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet
414 U.S. 573 (Supreme Court, 1974)
Medd v. Westcott
32 F.R.D. 25 (N.D. Iowa, 1963)
Lampe v. Lagomarcino-Grupe Company
100 N.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1959)
Acuff v. Schmit
78 N.W.2d 480 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1956)
Lane v. Steiniger
174 Iowa 317 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Rowe v. Richards
142 N.W. 664 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
Kelley v. Wilson
146 Iowa 601 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
Mageau v. Great Northern Railway Co.
115 N.W. 651 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1908)
Major v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.
88 N.W. 815 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Selleck v. City of Janesville
47 L.R.A. 691 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1899)
Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. Hickey
12 App. D.C. 269 (D.C. Circuit, 1898)
Kelley v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
38 L.R.A. 631 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Iowa 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mowry-v-chaney-iowa-1876.