Tuttle v. Cone
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Gedkut' Rapids Superior Court. — TIoN. T. M. GtbebsoN, Judge. PlaiNtiee states, as bis cause of action, that on May 11, 1896, said company commenced an action against Shelly Tuttle for seven thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight dollars and four cents, and procured an attachment for two thousand dollars, which the defendant Cone thereafter levied upon twenty-one bicycles, “which were in possession of the plaintiff, and were his absolute and unqualified…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Gedkut' Rapids Superior Court. — TIoN. T. M. GtbebsoN, Judge. PlaiNtiee states, as bis cause of action, that on May 11, 1896, said company commenced an action against Shelly Tuttle for seven thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight dollars and four cents, and procured an attachment for two thousand dollars, which the defendant Cone thereafter levied upon twenty-one bicycles, “which were in possession of the plaintiff, and were his absolute and unqualified property;” that plaintiff served notice of his ownership, whereupon said sheriff demanded and received from the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtGroar, J.
1 — I. Appellants’ first contention is that the court erred in admitting the evidence of several witnesses as to the value of the bicycles; the claim being that said witnesses were not shown to be competent to testify to their value, because not familiar with the value of bicycles in general, nor of that particular make. We have examined each of these complaints, and find that what is urged goes rather to the' weight to be given to the testimony of the witnesses than to their competency. We think the showing as to their competency was sufficient to allow their evidence to be taken.
Appellants…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Day Bros. & Co. v. KendallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gay v. JackmanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1923