Moriarty v. Central Iowa Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Ootirt. The plaintiff claims to have had two horses killed by a • train on the defendant’s road, and he seeks to recover double the value of the horses in this action. Trial by jury, judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
i. practice courinmotion to strike out evidence: affidavits to support. I. Counsel for the appellee have filed a motion to strike out what purports to be the evidence set out in the abstract, on the ground that it was not preserved by bill of exceptions, and is not otherwise prop-J . . 1 .’ . . K , erly identified. ibis motion is supported by f 11 j affidavits, but we think the record must speak for itself, and that it can neither be attacked nor supported by affidavits.
*6982.__: ?déniifieeanot abstract. *697. Upon looking into the record as set out in the abstract, we find that it does not purport to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mahaffy v. MahaffySupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Payne v. C., R. I. & P. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- McMillan v. B. & M. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Cross v. B. & S. W. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Miller v. C. & N. W. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1882
3Cited by8 opinions
- Rhines v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Manwell v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Ford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1894
- Baker Wire Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Story v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.