Legal Opinion

First Nat'l Bank v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R'y Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 17, 1883PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from Fremont District Cozirt. Action of replevin for certain grain. J. W. Allen & Co. intervened, claiming property in the grain under a purchase from the mortgagor executing the mortgage whereon the plaintiff bases his right to the grain. The railroad company disclaims any interest in the grain other than as a common carrier, the property having been delivered to it for transportation.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Fremont District Cozirt. Action of replevin for certain grain. J. W. Allen & Co. intervened, claiming property in the grain under a purchase from the mortgagor executing the mortgage whereon the plaintiff bases his right to the grain. The railroad company disclaims any interest in the grain other than as a common carrier, the property having been delivered to it for transportation. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiff, which, upon motion of ah intervenor, was set aside, and a new trial granted. . From, this order, plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.

— I. The motion for a new trial was based upon the ground, among others which were not sustained by the court and need not therefore be stated, that false testimony *701•was introduced by tbe plaintiff for tbe purpose of deceiving tbe court!. The affidavits in support of tbe motion sbow surprise, and tbat, after its introduction, wbicb was toward tbe close of tbe trial, tbe intervenors were unable to contradict tbe testimony, for tbe reason tbat their witnesses bad left tbe court for their homes, wbicb were at distant places.

Tbe evidence complained of by intervenors, wbicb they bad no opportunity…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Maland v. TesdallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  2. Guth v. BellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
  3. Roeser v. PeaseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  4. Mitchell v. BeckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
  5. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. HurleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API