84 Iowa 711 | Iowa | 1890
Lead Opinion
I. After the appellant’s reply to the appellee’s argument, the appellee filed an additonal
II. The controlling question was presented by the defendant’s demurrer to the first count of the
The defendant demurred to this count on the ground that it does not state facts constituting any ■defense as against the said answer, in that it fails to show that any acts of fraud or deceit charged therein were done at the instance or by the procurement of the ■defendant.
It will be observed that the count nowhere charges that the acts or representations of Horak were at the instance or by the procurement of the defendant. The question presented by the demurrer is, whether a party
III. On trial the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to introduce evidence as to the acts and
IY. At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant moved for a verdict upon the following among other
As already stated, the contract of settlement and. release set out was complete upon its face, and, as the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence tending to connect.
Rehearing
UPON REHEARING.
A petition for rehearing having been filed in this case and examined by the court, it was thought that a rehearing was desirable. The reargument has been made, and the whole case re-examined. Our conclusion is that the former opinion should be adhered to. We do not desire to add anything to the original opinion, and the judgment of the district court will stand. Afeirmed.