Darling v. Noyes
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Cowrt. Action to recover $251.25 for the work and labor of a boy and two teams on tbe Central Railroad of Iowa. Tbe petition alleges that tbe contract was made by defendant with plaintiff. Tbe answer sets np that defendant employed plaintiff’s son by a contract with him to do tbe work, to whom be bas made full payment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Cowrt. Action to recover $251.25 for the work and labor of a boy and two teams on tbe Central Railroad of Iowa. Tbe petition alleges that tbe contract was made by defendant with plaintiff. Tbe answer sets np that defendant employed plaintiff’s son by a contract with him to do tbe work, to whom be bas made full payment. It is also alleged that plaintiff’s son held himself out as an adult, and that defendant bad good reason to believe, and did believe, him to be such. It is also pleaded that plaintiff acquiesced in tbe acts of bis son, and is accordingly estopped…
1Opinion of the Court
Bspr, 'J.
Defendant’s counsel insist that the special findings are inconsistent with the general verdict, and do not sustain the allegations of the petition. These allegations are, that the contract was made by plaintiff with defendant. The special verdict is that the son made the contract. There is no conflict in this. The son as the agent of the father, it may be supposed, made the contract. Proof of such fact would sustain the allegations of the petition; and the special finding of the jury is not inconsistent with such an hypothesis. The other special findings in the same view accord with…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Utilities Holding Corp. v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
- Birum-Olson Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- King v. Farmers Grain Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1922