122 Iowa 533 | Iowa | 1904
The plaintiffs bought the stock of goods involved in this litigation of insolvent debtors only a day or two before the attachments were levied and the goods taken, and the sole fact issue in the case was whether the purchase was fraudulent as to the vendor’s creditors. This issue has been exhaustively argued by both sides, and we have given the evidence the careful examination and consideration which the importance of the case demanded, and have reached the conclusion that we should not interfere with the verdict. Some suspicious circumstances were developed upon the trial, it is true, but they were fairly explained, and, if the jury believed the evidence offered by the plaintiffs — as they seem to have done— the verdict is well supported.
In their petition the plaintiffs demanded a certain amount per day for the detention of the goods. A motion to strike this allegation -was overruled, as was also a motion to
The testimony of Urdangen relative to his having been offered another stock of goods for fifty-five cents on the dollar
"Whether the plaintiffs’ vendors did or did not turn over to the trustee in bankruptcy the money received for the goods some two or three days after the sale had been consummated
After the sale had been fully consummated, and after the plaintiffs had taken possession of the stock, the cashier of a bank went into the plaintiffs’ store, and had a conversation
No objection was made to the testimony of the witness Lutz, or to him as a witness on the ground of his confidential
The appellants complain of the twelfth paragraph of the instructions given. It is as follows: “The sale*of the goods, if one was made, by Popofsky & Bernstein to plaintiffs, would
We are not certain whether the appellants challenge the eleventh paragraph of the charge. It told the jury that, if the plaintiffs did not pay the full value of the stock, it would
Many instructions were requested by the defendant, and the refusal to give them is complained of. The charge given
The principal complaint of the appellant relates to the rejection of instructions stating that, if the plaintiffs had knowledge of “facts sufficient to excite the suspicions of a
The case was carefully and fairly tried, and we find no prejudicial error in the record. A motion to dismiss the appeal because of the performance of the judgment was submitted with the case. Without discussing the- question involved, we reach the conclusion that the payment of the eosts of the ease was not, in the circumstances, voluntary, and the motion is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.