Wallick v. Pierce
This text of 71 N.W. 429 (Wallick v. Pierce) 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
This is an equity cause, triable here de novo if at all, and the abstract must show that we have all the evidence offered, received, or introduced. A statement that it contains all the evidence introduced and received is not sufficient, for we must have all the evidence offered, whether received or rejected by the lower court. Reed v. Larrison, 77 Iowa, 399; Taylor v. Kier, 54 Iowa, 645; Tuttle v. Story County, 56 Iowa, 316; Marble Works v. Linesenmeyer, 80 Iowa, 253; Bank v. Ash, 85 Iowa, 74. The statement made by appellant with reference to this matter is that “the abstract is a full, true, and complete one of all the evidence offered and received, as well as introduced and received.” The evidence offered and rejected is not set out. We cannot try the case de novo and, as no errors are assigned, there is nothing to consider. Reed v. Larrison, supra. For the reasons first above stated, the judgment is aeeirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 N.W. 429, 102 Iowa 746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallick-v-pierce-iowa-1897.