92 Iowa 748 | Iowa | 1894
II. The following and other like questions were asked plaintiffs’ witnesses, and were objected to as incompetent, and not calling for the correct measure of damages. In each case the ruling was against defendant, and it excepted. “What was the market value of that horse less after than before the injury, if anything? What, in your judgment, was -that horse worth less in the market by these curbs, if anything? What, in your judgment, was that horse worth less, if anything, by reason of the injuries?” It is contended that this was simply calling for testimony as to the amount of plaintiffs’ damage. On the other hand, it is contended that there is a difference between asking a witness how much a party’s damage was, and how much less in value his property was, if anything, by reason of the injury. True, the result reached, so far as figures are concerned, is the same in both cases. As this case must be reversed for the reasons heretofore stated, and as the question is not likely to arise upon another trial, we need give it no further consideration. Reveksed.