120 Iowa 428 | Iowa | 1903
The plaintiff alleges that he became the owner of the property in question by purchase from one
Complaint1 is made of certain instructions given by the trial court, but the appellee challenges the sufficiency of the assignment of error relating thereto. It is as follows:
There was no prejudicial error in sustaining the objections to questions asked the defendant Benson on cross-examination, on the ground that they were leading. The
The assignment of error as to the sufficiency of the-evidence and at to the legality of the judgment entered is good, and we will now consider those matters. We have
The verdict should have been set aside, so far as ihe property claimed by William Benson was concerned, for lack of evidence to support it. The property taken under the writ was delivered to the plaintiff. It consisted of horses and wagons, cows, pigs, etc. The jury found the value thereof, and that the defendants had suffered damages by reason of its detention.
After the verdict the defendants asked for money j udgments against the plaintiff and his bond. Judgments were thereupon rendered against him for the full value of
It is difficult to establish a rule which shall apply to all cases, without regard to their peculiar facts, and we are not attempting to do so here. In this case the value of
The Holstein cow and the buggy were found to be the property of Bernard Benson at the time the bill of sale was executed and at the time they were taken on the writ.
If he shall file a written remittitur of all in excess of the value of this property with six per cent, interest per annum thereon since it was taken, within thirty days after the filing of this opinion, the judgment as to him will stand; otherwise it will be reversed. The judgment in favor of William Benson is REVERSED.