48 Iowa 168 | Iowa | 1878
I. We will notice the objections taken by counsel for appellant to the rulings of the court in the order in which they aré presented in argument.
The plaintiff offered to introduce the copy of the contract made by defendants, as an admission that the note as altered was correct.
The court sustained an objection to this evidence, and this is made a ground of complaint.
There wras no error in the ruling of the court. The original contract w-as produced by the plaintiff, and introduced in evidence without objection. The copy was in the same words and figures. The fact that defendants made a true copy of the original for plaintiff could not be taken as an admission that it had been changed by parol.
IY. The plaintiff sought to show that the note was given for money then due, drawing interest, and in judgment, as tending to corroborate his claim that the note was actually
"Whether it was collected or not does not appear. If it was not, there was no error in excluding this evidence. Besides, the plaintiff already had the evidence in proper form before the jury in the written contract.
Y. Objection is made to overruling certain interrogations propounded to David Eyan, one of the defendants, who wras examined as a witness. An examination of the whole of his evidence satisfied us that no prejudice resulted from this action of the court. Some of the rulings standing alone would seem to be erroneous, but the witness was afterward required to answer as to the material facts inquired about.
YI. Lastly, it is urged that the court erred in instructing the jury that the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that the note was altered by erasure before delivery.
The record shows that the plaintiff, at the opening of the trial, offered to assume the burden of proof, and claimed the right to do so, and also the right to open and close the case. This claim was accorded to him by the court, against the objection of defendants.
As the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the burden of proof,' and insisted it was upon him, he cannot now complain because the court followed his claim to its legitimate conclusion, and instructed the jury accordingly.
Affirmed.