Harper v. Kurtz
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Polh District Court. — W. S. Ayres, Judge. Action by plaintiffs, a partnership, to recover advancements alleged to bave been made by plaintiffs for tbe defendant as a customer, in the purchase of grain on the Chicago board of trade. The amount claimed was $4,100. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs. Upon defendant’s motion, a new trial was ordered. From such order the plaintiffs have appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.
shops:0¿obn-cKet grainefypieading. I. It is the contention of the plaintiff that only one of the many grounds contained in defendant’s motion for a new trial was sustained, and that the others were overruled. Without going into the question, we shall take for granted the correctness of the claim of appellant in this regard, and shall consider the propriety of the court’s order as being based upon one ground of the motion only. This ground of the motion charged error in Instruction No. 5, given by the court, in that the court therein failed to take account of Section 4975-d of the Supplement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cram v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Johnson v. City of DenisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Cheney v. StevensSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- McDermott v. Ida CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
3Cited by5 opinions
- Heavilin v. WendellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Hoyt v. WickhamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Hall v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Lamson Bros. v. RurupSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
- Hunt v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1920