TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Woodman v. Dutton

Woodman v. Dutton, 10 N.W. 830 (Iowa 1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1881
Judges
Day
Citations
10 N.W. 83057 Iowa 442
Headnotes
1. Practice: finding of the court: sufficiency of evidence. The finding of the court stands as the verdict of a jury and cannot be distrubed unless so clearly opposed to the evidence as to indicate that it was the result of passion or prejudice.
Summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. The plaintiff claims of the defendant the sum of $2,363.23 on account of alleged deposits, made by himself, and by one Stolp, his assignor, with the defendant as a private banker. The defendant alleges that he paid all of the money deposited, to the plaintiff, and to his assignor, Stolp, and fully settled the same. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. This case was before us on a former appeal, and is reported in 49 Iowa, 398.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Day

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Day, J.

i. pkcatice tue court: of evidence, The only point relied upon is that the finding of the court is not sustained by the evidence. The case is one of a clear conflict of testimony. The finding of the court stands as a verdict of a jury, and cannot be disturbed unless so clearly opposed to the evidence as to indicate that it was the result of passion or prejudice rather than of a deliberate and honest weighing of the evidence introduced.

Upon the former appeal, on evidence less satisfactory for the defendant than that now submitted, some of the members of this court were of opinion that the preponderance was in favor of defendant, and would have been better satisfied with the result, if the judgment had been in his favor. We are now united in the opinion that the finding of the court is not wanting in support from the evidence, and that the case is not one which warrants us in disturbing the judgment.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list