King v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Oowrt. — R. P. Ho well, Judge. Action for damages consequent on a collision with defendant’s train resulted in judgment for plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
1DissentSalinger, J.
I. Many matters raised in the brief are not mentioned in the opinion. I take it the reason for this is that the matters are deemed not to have been presented in rule manner. In my opinion, the assignments should be mentioned and disposed of for that reason.
IT. There is complaint of the striking of certain testimony given by defendant’s engineer, and the majority sustains the ruling.
It is difficult to determine from the record just what the court in fact excluded. The appellant asserts it was one thing, but its assertion is not proof. A different situation arises if it be the fact that…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Bruggeman v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Muldowney v. Ill. Cent. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Gray v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Bourrett v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Decatur v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.