Furman v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.

This case is before us upon a third appeal. The first decision is reported in 57 Iowa, 12, and the second in 62 Iowa, 395. It is not necessary that we should again make a detailed statement of the facts. They appear now to be substantially the same as before, except that before the testimony of the plaintiff’s husband showed that he acted for the plaintiff in delivering the goods to the defendant as a common carrier. That evidence has now been excluded upon the plaintiff’s objection. It does not now appear who acted for the plaintiff in making a delivery of the goods, except that he was a man…