Conway v. Nicol
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa District Court. Action for criminal conversation with plaintiff’s wife at various times, and particularly about the 11th or 12th of April, 1870. Answer in denial of the acts charged in April, 1870, and pleading the statute of limitations, as to the remainder. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisa District Court. Action for criminal conversation with plaintiff’s wife at various times, and particularly about the 11th or 12th of April, 1870. Answer in denial of the acts charged in April, 1870, and pleading the statute of limitations, as to the remainder. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals, and assigns the following errors: 1. “ The district court erred in giving instructions Nos. 4, 8, 9 and 11.” 2. “In refusing to give the instructions ashed by the defendant, to wit: 2, 3, 4 and 5.”
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
2. Crim. con.: evidence: state of liminations. I. In the fourth and eighth instructions, the court directed the jury as follows: “ The plaintiff can only recover in this action for the seduction of his wife? af a time within two years prior to the date 0f institution of this action, * * * but you will be permitted to consider the testimony bearing date previous to the time fixed by the statute of limitations, for the purpose of showing the relation of defendant to Elizabeth Conway, his control or influence over her, her character previous to the alleged seduction or adulterous intercourse…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gardner v. MadeiraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1799
3Cited by12 opinions
- Browning v. GosnellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Shewalter v. BergmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Dickson v. DinsmoreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Stumm v. HummelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Dodge v. RushDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.