84 Iowa 567 | Iowa | 1892
The plaintiff claims to be the absolute and unqualified owner of the property in controversy, which includes colts, cows, calves, steers and heifers of the alleged value of six hundred and eighty-eight dollars. The defendant claims a right to the property under an execution levied thereon by him, which was issued on a judgment in favor of John Bell & Co., and against John G-ollobitsch, the husband of plaintiff. The defendant claims that the property in question belongs to the execution debtor, and that the alleged ownership of the plaintiff is fraudulent. We have not been favored with an argument for the appellee.
I. The plaintiff filed a motion asking that John Bell & Co. and E. Lindsey be made additional parties
II. The court permitted a deputy of the defendant to impanel the jury, although objection was duly made
III. The plaintiff objected to the deposition of Henry Hurse, and moved that it be suppressed, for the
IV. The appellant complains of the refusal of the court to instruct the jury as follows: ‘‘Where one
Y. The court charged the jury that a wife “cannot acquire and hold property adverse to her husband’s
YI. The appellant has presented numerous questions for our consideration. Some are only suggested, and many relate to rulings on the admission of evidence, or to the instructing of the jury in regard to matters which depend upon the evidence, and, therefore, may not again arise. Some of the questions presented are immaterial, and others relate to matters which were clearly not prejudicial. In the absence of an argument for the appellee, we refrain from discussing questions which will not necessarily arise on another trial. For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the district Court ÍS BEVEBSED.