Hubbell v. Ream
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa District Gov/rt. The plaintiffs filed, in the Louisa district court, their' petition, claiming the sum of $55,000, alleged to be due ’ on thirty-two promissory notes executed by defendants and one McCreery, under the firm name of McCreery, Ream & Kent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisa District Gov/rt. The plaintiffs filed, in the Louisa district court, their' petition, claiming the sum of $55,000, alleged to be due ’ on thirty-two promissory notes executed by defendants and one McCreery, under the firm name of McCreery, Ream & Kent. To this petition the defendants answered, alleging that, on the 9th day of February, 1868, the copartnership of McCreery, Ream & Kent was dissolved by mutual consent, and it was agreed between the plaintiffs, the defendants and said McCreery that if the defendants would deliver to McCreery all the assets of the firm of…
1Opinion of the Court
Day, Ch. J.
l. witnesses : separation of. — I. Upon the trial, the defendants having the burden of proof, at their instance John McCreery, a material witness for the plaintiffs, was excluded <juring -fog examination of the defendants’ witnesses. The plaintiffs complain of this action of the court. Not only is it within the discretion of the court trying a cause to order a separate examination of witnesses, but such order, upon the application of either party, is rarely withheld. 1 Greenl. on Ev., § 432 and note 1.
*2912. Evidence : leading questions. II. The defendant Kent, after having testified…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kellogg v. WadhamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
- Owen v. OwenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- McKay v. ThoringtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- State v. PellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Hoegh v. SeeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- McNichols v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- State v. RohnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.