correctness instruction in Iowa

1978While it is true the trial court in Wagner submitted to the jury a charge similar to that given here (“The law provides that an employer must use reasonable care to provide and maintain for his employees, reasonably suitable and safe appliances, machinery and tools with which to work.” 257 Iowa at 1210 , 136 N.W.2d at 317 ), the court pointed out the correctness of this instruction was not challenged. 257 Iowa at 1210 , 136 N.W.2d at 317 .

1978While it is true the trial court in Wagner submitted to the jury a charge similar to that given here (“The law provides that an employer must use reasonable care to provide and maintain for his employees, reasonably suitable and safe appliances, machinery and tools with which to work.” 257 Iowa at 1210 , 136 N.W.2d at 317 ), the court pointed out the correctness of this instruction was not challenged. 257 Iowa at 1210 , 136 N.W.2d at 317 .

1969See State v. Russell, 245 Iowa 1190, 1205 , 66 N.W.2d 35, 43 , objection to the court’s failure to instruct on a specific matter “was not called to the court’s attention in any way, by requested instruction, or otherwise”; State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1205 , 152 N.W.2d 236, 241 , defendant’s motion for new trial made no reference to the instructions which he challenged for the first time on appeal; State v. Hardesty, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 464 , defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor did he raise the question as to the correctness of the instruction in a motion for new trial; St

1969See State v. Russell, 245 Iowa 1190, 1205 , 66 N.W.2d 35, 43 , objection to the court’s failure to instruct on a specific matter “was not called to the court’s attention in any way, by requested instruction, or otherwise”; State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1205 , 152 N.W.2d 236, 241 , defendant’s motion for new trial made no reference to the instructions which he challenged for the first time on appeal; State v. Hardesty, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 464 , defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor did he raise the question as to the correctness of the instruction in a motion for new trial; St

1969See State v. Russell, 245 Iowa 1190, 1205 , 66 N.W.2d 35, 43 , objection to the court’s failure to instruct on a specific matter “was not called to the court’s attention in any way, by requested instruction, or otherwise”; State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1205 , 152 N.W.2d 236, 241 , defendant’s motion for new trial made no reference to the instructions which he challenged for the first time on appeal; State v. Hardesty, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 464 , defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor did he raise the question as to the correctness of the instruction in a motion for new trial; St

1969See State v. Russell, 245 Iowa 1190, 1205 , 66 N.W.2d 35, 43 , objection to the court’s failure to instruct on a specific matter “was not called to the court’s attention in any way, by requested instruction, or otherwise”; State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1205 , 152 N.W.2d 236, 241 , defendant’s motion for new trial made no reference to the instructions which he challenged for the first time on appeal; State v. Hardesty, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 464 , defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor did he raise the question as to the correctness of the instruction in a motion for new trial; St

1969See State v. Russell, 245 Iowa 1190, 1205 , 66 N.W.2d 35, 43 , objection to the court’s failure to instruct on a specific matter “was not called to the court’s attention in any way, by requested instruction, or otherwise”; State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1205 , 152 N.W.2d 236, 241 , defendant’s motion for new trial made no reference to the instructions which he challenged for the first time on appeal; State v. Hardesty, Iowa, 153 N.W.2d 464 , defendant neither objected to the instruction given nor did he raise the question as to the correctness of the instruction in a motion for new trial; St

1937The appellee relies upon the case of McKeever v. Batcheler, 219 Iowa 93 , 257 N. W. 567 , as sustaining the correctness of the instruction under discussion.

1937The appellee relies upon the case of McKeever v. Batcheler, 219 Iowa 93 , 257 N. W. 567 , as sustaining the correctness of the instruction under discussion.

1934In the case of In re Skinner’s Estate, 215 Iowa 1021 , 247 N. W. 484 , we had before us a trust estate in which the trustee loaned money to himself and purchased land for himself therewith and improved such land with the trust funds.

1924It has been approved in Massachusetts (see Gorham, v. Gross, 125 Mass. 232 ); in Minnesota (see Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324 ).

1924It has been approved in Massachusetts (see Gorham, v. Gross, 125 Mass. 232 ); in Minnesota (see Cahill v. Eastman, 18 Minn. 324 ).

1917In Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110, 117 , the court said: “The note * * * was indorsed by the payee * * * 'without recourse.’ But that 'is not sufficient to charge the assignee with notice of a defense against the note on the part of the maker, nor is it sufficient to put him on inquiry in reference thereto.’ Stevenson v. O’Neal, 71 Ill. 314.” Section 3060-a57 provides: “A holder in due course holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount there

1917In Kelley v. Whitney, 45 Wis. 110, 117 , the court said: “The note * * * was indorsed by the payee * * * 'without recourse.’ But that 'is not sufficient to charge the assignee with notice of a defense against the note on the part of the maker, nor is it sufficient to put him on inquiry in reference thereto.’ Stevenson v. O’Neal, 71 Ill. 314.” Section 3060-a57 provides: “A holder in due course holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and free from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment of the instrument for the full amount there

1917Bank v. Jordan, 139 Iowa 499 , Iowa Nat.

1913Clampit v. Railway Co., 84 Iowa, 71 ; Thomas v. Railway, 103 Iowa, 659 ; Schmidt v. Coal Co. (Mich.) 123 N. W. 1122 ; 29 Cyc. 443.

1913Clampit v. Railway Co., 84 Iowa, 71 ; Thomas v. Railway, 103 Iowa, 659 ; Schmidt v. Coal Co. (Mich.) 123 N. W. 1122 ; 29 Cyc. 443.

1911It all flows naturally to the west.” In argument counsel for appellee do not contend very •strenuously for the correctness of the claim that the true course of drainage is to the north; but they say that even if the flow be to the west, as defendants claim, and plaintiff’s estate be held to be servient to the defendants’ with respect to the natural drainage, yet the effect of the ditch of which he complains is to cast the water upon him in a different way and in larger quantities than would otherwise be the case, and that under the rule applied in Livingston v. McDonald, 21 Iowa, 160 , and cas

1907In support of their contention, they rely upon an Iowa case, In re Will of Foster, 76 Iowa, 364 .

1903“If the bond contains the names of other obligors, and is delivered without the signature of .all, the obligee must inquire whether those who have signed consent to its being delivered without the signature of the others.” Fletcher v. Austin, 11 Vt. 447 ( 34 Am.

1902As sustaining our conclusions regarding the correctness of the instruction asked, see Me-chem, Sales, section 1073; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348 , ( 25 Am.

1902It was shown that the dead horse, with others, was traded by a former owner to the party of whom the plaintiff purchased him, and the defendant then offered to show the value of all of these other horses, and in fact was permitted to show the value of some of them. 3 Evidence, of the value of this stallion when sold to Keefe, long before he was obtained by the plaintiff, even if a cash price had been paid for him, was incompetent, under the rule announced in Gere v. Insurance Co., 67 Iowa, 272 .

1895Law (8th Ed.) section 1284; Cothran v. State, 39 Miss. 541 ; People v. Lem You (Cal.) 32 Pac.

1895The conclusion that the jury must necessarily have reached, that the plaintiff was free from, contributory negligence, is not without support in the evidence, and cannot be set aside. 'The defendant relies upon the cases of Fernbach v. City of Waterloo, 76 Iowa, 598 ( 41 N. W.

1895The conclusion that the jury must necessarily have reached, that the plaintiff was free from, contributory negligence, is not without support in the evidence, and cannot be set aside. 'The defendant relies upon the cases of Fernbach v. City of Waterloo, 76 Iowa, 598 ( 41 N. W.

1894P. Railway Co., 70 Iowa, 593 , an exception in a motion for a new trial was in these words: “The court erred in giving the fourth instruction in form and manner it did, without more, as it is contradictory and misleading, and does not express the full requirements of the law.” It is held that the exception was too general, and that the correctness of the instruction could not be considered.

1888In Stafford v. City of Oskaloosa, 57 Iowa, 748, language is used which appears to support the doctrine of the instruction, and that case has been cited by other courts and text-writers in support of it.

1879In Grant v. The City of Davenport, 36 Iowa, 396 (401), referring to this constitutional provision it is said: “We are not by any means inclined to limit or restrain the meaning of the word ‘indebtedness,’ as there used, so-as to confine it to debts evidenced by bond, or to those which are due simply, but rather to give to the word its fair and legitimate meaning and general acceptation. ” In French v. The City of Burlington, 42 Iowa, 614 , the correctness of the doctrine above announced was recognized and reaffirmed.

1879In Grant v. The City of Davenport, 36 Iowa, 396 (401), referring to this constitutional provision it is said: “We are not by any means inclined to limit or restrain the meaning of the word ‘indebtedness,’ as there used, so-as to confine it to debts evidenced by bond, or to those which are due simply, but rather to give to the word its fair and legitimate meaning and general acceptation. ” In French v. The City of Burlington, 42 Iowa, 614 , the correctness of the doctrine above announced was recognized and reaffirmed.

1877In Hayward v. Munger, 14 Iowa, 516 , the correctness of such a rule is questioned, and the court says: “ We are not aware of any case decided by this court which recognizes the right to such interest.” It is evident, therefore, that the case of Phelps v. Pierson. supra, was not regarded as having determined the question. 2. ——: ioi-m practioe.' III.

1877Pilmer v. The Branch State Bank, 16 Iowa, 321 ; Huse v. Hamblin, supra. The correctness of the rule is so fully vindicated in the first of these cases, that nothing more need be -said-in its support. ___. -• YII.