Grash v. Sater
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Ilenry District Court. Action for a trespass, in pulling down plaintiff’s Louse, carrying away the material, and destroying plaintiff’s property therein. The defendants answered first, by a general denial. Afterwards, Thomas P. Sater filed a special answer, justifying as a constable, holding a writ of attachment in an action by the two other defendants, against the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Ilenry District Court. Action for a trespass, in pulling down plaintiff’s Louse, carrying away the material, and destroying plaintiff’s property therein. The defendants answered first, by a general denial. Afterwards, Thomas P. Sater filed a special answer, justifying as a constable, holding a writ of attachment in an action by the two other defendants, against the plaintiff. The other defendants also filed a special answer, justifying under, and by command of, the said Thomas P, Sater, as constable. Trial, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants excepted to…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
— In tli£ defendant’s argument they say that the court wrongly ruled, that there was no sufficient answer in denial. It does not appear from the record, that the court ruled this, nor is it necessarily involved in the instructions given, and the first error assigned. They also claim that the court erred in ruling that by the justification, the defendants waived the denial. This is rather an inference of the party, and a construction placed upon the court’s rulings, for the court did not so rule in terms; and what they did hold, is fairly susceptible of quite a different meaning.
It will be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Treadway v. S. C. & St. P. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- Rudd v. DeweySupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Quigley v. MerrittSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Parsons v. TrowbridgeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Horstman ex rel. City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Street Railway Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1903