Williams v. Brown

41 N.W. 377, 76 Iowa 643, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 55
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 24, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 41 N.W. 377 (Williams v. Brown) 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
Williams v. Brown, 41 N.W. 377, 76 Iowa 643, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 55 (iowa 1889).

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. trespass : no evidence of extent : nominal damages. — I. The undisputed evidence and the pleadings show the following facts: Plaintiff owned the land in question, which was uninclosed . ' . and unoccupied. It was mainly prairie. . -. „ r,„ Plaintiff is not a resident of the state. The herd law is in force in the county wherein the land is situated. The defendant herded his cattle upon the land ; but the evidence wholly fails to show how long the land was so used by defendant, how many cattle he herded, and the value of such use, or any other fact which would enable the jury to estimate the damages, if any, which plaintiff sustained. It appears that other persons herded cattle upon the land during the time it was used by defendant. Any verdict, except for nominal damages, would have been found without evidence, and must have been wholly b'ased upon the merest conjecture. The court was right in refusing to submit the case to the jury for a verdict. It should have directed the jury to find a verdict for a nominal sum, if upon the law and the facts plaintiff is entitled to recover at all, which we do not attempt to decide ; only holding, for the purposes of the case, that, if plaintiff can recover at all, the recovery can only be for nominal damages.

2. appeal; versal torQOnilQdrl ud'^1" ages only. II. But an omission to award nominal damages, when the evidence shows a right to recover no more, is no ground for setting aside a judgment and granting a new' trial. Norman v. Winch, 65 Iowa, 263; Case Threshing Machine Co. v. Haven, 65 Iowa, 359; Watson v. Moeller, 63 Iowa, 161; Watson v. Van Meter, 43 Iowa, 76; Wire v. Foster, 62 Iowa, 114; Insurance Co. v. Findley, 59 Iowa, 591; Rowley v. Jewett, 56 Iowa, 492; Portman v. Klemish, 54 Iowa, 198.

III. The question as to the liability of defendant for herding cattle upon the uninclosed and unoccupied land of plaintiff we do not consider, for the reason that [645]*645its decision is not necessary for the disposition of the case. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Whittington v. City of Bedford
210 N.W. 460 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1926)
Goslar v. Reed
179 N.W. 621 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Cole v. Thompson
112 N.W. 178 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1907)
Foster v. Bussey
109 N.W. 1105 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Rice v. Whitley
115 Iowa 748 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Cravens v. Hunter
87 Mo. App. 456 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Roberts v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co.
67 N.W. 607 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Metcalf v. Nelson
65 N.W. 911 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Schwartz v. Samuel C. Davis & Co.
57 N.W. 849 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 N.W. 377, 76 Iowa 643, 1889 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-brown-iowa-1889.