Rutledge v. Evans
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Madison District Court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The right of the District Court to control the order of testimony is undoubted, and like the exercise of any other discretionary power it will not be reviewed by the appellate court unless grossly abused. The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Simpson, 14 Pet. 448; Van Burén v. Wells, 19 Wend. 208; 1 Hill. 300; 14 Penn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Madison District Court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The right of the District Court to control the order of testimony is undoubted, and like the exercise of any other discretionary power it will not be reviewed by the appellate court unless grossly abused. The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. Simpson, 14 Pet. 448; Van Burén v. Wells, 19 Wend. 208; 1 Hill. 300; 14 Penn. S. R. (2 liar.) 91; 17 lb. 844; 35 Maine 198; 14 Ala. 198; 20 Ala-294; 14 Geo. 55.
1Opinion of the Court
Lowe, 0. J.1
Proceeding in replevin. Plaintiff claimed the possession and ownership of seventy-two dry hides valued at $111,00, which defendant-had levied upon and taken out of his possession by an execution in favor of Pattens, Low & Merriam, for $376,48 against one W. A. Jenkins. The defense set up was that Jenkins owned much property, including a stock of goods, and was largely in debt; that on the 10th of August, 1859, he conveyed all the property to plaintiff, his brother-in-law, which included the hides in controversy. This was denied, the cause tried, verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
T…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Donaldson v. Mississippi & Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Lambert v. Reisman Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Bryce v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Lundvick v. National Union Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- French v. ReelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.