Courtney v. Carr
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Polk District Court. Eor the facts see the opinion of the court. I. The bill of exceptions was filed in open court on the 29th day of March 1860. It may be filed after the trial by consent,. “ and where a bill of exceptions is subsequently filed, such consent shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown by the record.” Code of 1851, section 1805; Bae. Abr. Title, 'Bills of Exceptions; Beauchamp v. Mudd, Hardin’s Ky. R. 166. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Polk District Court. Eor the facts see the opinion of the court. I. The bill of exceptions was filed in open court on the 29th day of March 1860. It may be filed after the trial by consent,. “ and where a bill of exceptions is subsequently filed, such consent shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown by the record.” Code of 1851, section 1805; Bae. Abr. Title, 'Bills of Exceptions; Beauchamp v. Mudd, Hardin’s Ky. R. 166. II. The instructions given for plaintiff are contrary to law. In the case of Holmes v. Clark, 10 Iowa 423, it is made the settled law in this State, that to…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
A question preliminary to the consideration of the errors assigned, first demands our attention. During the trial testimony was offered by appellant which was rejected, to which defendant, in the language of the bill of exceptions, “ at the time excepted.” These instructions were asked by plaintiff and given, and defendant in like manner excepted. And so he did again when instructions asked by him were refused. The verdict being for plaintiff, defendant moved to set it aside and for a new trial; and this motion, “ owing to a press of business,” was continued to the next term. At the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Munroe v. PritchettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
- Holmes v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Taylor v. FleetNew York Supreme Court · 1847
3Cited by2 opinions
- Boddy v. HenrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Laird Bros. v. DickersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875