Marsel v. Bowman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. The petition states that defendant is the owner of a vicious dog, “which was in the habit of biting children and other persons without cause, and defendant, well knowing his vicious and ferocious habit, and that he had repeatedly bitten children and other persons, wrongfully and negligently permitted him to run at large, and, while so, he bit the plaintiffs legs and ankles,” to her great damage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. The petition states that defendant is the owner of a vicious dog, “which was in the habit of biting children and other persons without cause, and defendant, well knowing his vicious and ferocious habit, and that he had repeatedly bitten children and other persons, wrongfully and negligently permitted him to run at large, and, while so, he bit the plaintiffs legs and ankles,” to her great damage. Trial by jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $365. The defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
I. It is assigned as error that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial. There are five or more distinct grounds stated in the motion for a new trial. This assignment of error is too general, indefinite, and not as specific as the statute requires. It must, therefore, be disregarded. Reilly v. Ringland, 44 Iowa, 423.
II. The only other errors assigned challenge the correctness of the instructions. The evidence showed that the dog had bitten several persons, but there was no evidence that *58plaintiff bad knowledge thereof, except in a single instance. The defendant himself…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Frammell v. LittleIndiana Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by9 opinions
- Clinkenbeard v. ReinertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- O'Neill v. BlaseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Alexander v. CrosbySupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Collins v. KenealySupreme Court of Iowa · 1992
- Holt v. LeslieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.