History
  • No items yet
midpage
Heath v. Coltenback
5 Iowa 490
Iowa
1858
Check Treatment
"Wright, C. J.

The appellant insists that the court erred in the instruction given to the jury, as to the duty of plaintiff to fence his crops, and protect them against the alleged trespass of defendant’s stock. The instructions were in accordance with the rule as recognized by this court, in Bissell v. Wagner, 3 Iowa, 396.

It is also claimed that as the transcript of the justice does not show that defendant denied plaintiff’s claim, the court below erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant. It does appeal’, however, that the parties before the justice, had a full investigation and trial of the case. Under such circumstances, we have held, in several cases, that the demand of plaintiff is not to be treated as admitted on the trial in the district court. Brock v. Manatt, ante, 270, and Milburn v. Sinnamon, 4 G. Greene, 309.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Heath v. Coltenback
Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa
Date Published: Jan 26, 1858
Citation: 5 Iowa 490
Court Abbreviation: Iowa
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.