88 Iowa 381 | Iowa | 1893
It is averred that the plaintiff and the defendant, in January, 1891, entered into a marriage engagement; that the marriage was to take place about December 25, 1891; that in April, 1891, the defendant married another woman, and thus put it out of his power to perform his contract with the plaintiff. The answer admits the. marriage of the defendant and denies the other allegations of the petition.
VII. On cross-examination, the defendant was asked several questions in relation to his property. All of them were objected to as not being proper cross-examination. The objections should have been sustained. Nothing was asked him on direct examination relating to his property. The questions were foreign to the examination in chief.
VIII. Complaint is made that the court admitted certain evidence in rebuttal which was a part of the plaintiff’s case in chief. As there was no ruling, we must presume that the objection was waived.
The many other errors assigned we find to be without merit. For the reasons given, the judgment of the district court is bevebsed.