Pitman v. Molsberry

49 Iowa 339
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided October 24, 1878·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Adams, J.

[340]*3401. appeal : exception to instructions. [339]*339The court gave twelve instructions. It is not claimed that all are erroneous, yet no exception is reserved [340]*340except to all the instructions in a mass. That this is not sufficient see McCaleb v. Smith, 24 Iowa, 591, and eases cited.

There is no assignment of errors. The appellant claims, in argument, that the verdict.is contrary to the evidence. The only question of doubt presented is as to whether the plaintiff was received by Molsberry into his house, and remained there under such circumstances that she was justified in believing that she was regarded as a member of his family, and not as a boarder. The, jury must have found that she was. While the correctness of the verdict may well be doubted, we should hardly feel at liberty to set it aside, even if error had been assigned on the point.

AFFIRMED.

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

Pitman v. Molsberry, 49 Iowa 339 (iowa 1878).

49 Iowa 339 (Pitman v. Molsberry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ludwig v. Blackshere
71 N.W. 356 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)
Rowen v. Sommers
66 N.W. 897 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
S. W. Hallenbeck & Son v. Garst
96 Iowa 509 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)
Reeves Bros. v. Harrington
52 N.W. 517 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1892)
Black v. City of Lewiston
13 P. 80 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1887)