40 Iowa 591 | Iowa | 1875
I. It is conceded by appellee that, if the plaintiff made the purchase of the property in question with his own
The plaintiff’s testimony in this case was confined almost entirely to personal transactions between himself and his deceased wife. That it was not competent against the defendants, the heirs at law of that wife, a bare statement of the provisions of this section sufficiently shows.
' If it does not inhibit such testimony, we are at a loss to know what it.means, or to what it can refer. There is but one
If an executor, heir at law, or next of kin, is a party to an action, and in his own behalf testifies respecting any personal transaction or communication between the deceased and the opposite party, or a third person interested in* the event of the suit, then such other party or interested person may testify respecting the same transaction. See Canaday v. Johnson, ante, p. 587.
In this case Mary E. Brolliar, one of the defendants, testified respecting a particular transaction between her mother and the plaintiff. This ojjened the way for plaintiff to testify in regard to that particular transaction, but not respecting other and disconnected transactions.
The Code of 1873 was in force at the time of the trial, and its provisions as to evidence apply to this case, notwithstand-
II. The plaintiff admits that he has had possession of the premises in dispute ever since the death of his wife. The
Reyeesed.