Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nicoll v. Sweet

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 13, 1913Published

Appeal from Benton District Court. — Hon. C. B. Bradshaw, Judge. Action at law to recover damages against the estate of S. S. Sweet, deceased, on account of the death of one Walter H. McNulty. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

1DissentPreston, J.

(dissenting.) — I regret that I am unable to agree with my Associates in regard to the admissibility of the evidence as to the number of children and instruction No. eleven and one half on that subject. I shall set out the record more fully than has been done in the majority opinion.

Plaintiff, Mrs. Nicoll, formerly Mrs. McNulty, was permitted to testify over objections as follows: “Q. Did he leave any family other than yourself ? Did he have any children? The Court: It is not admitted for the purpose of affecting damages in any way, but it is done for some other purpose. A. Four. Q. What were…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. RoySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad v. MacKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  3. Simpson v. . Foundation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  4. Dayharsh v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
  5. Donaldson v. Mississippi & Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API