Case ID: iowa_24/html/0591-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dillon, Ch. J,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCaleb v. Smith.
    
      Appeal from Washington District Court
    
    Tuesday, May 5.
    A GENERAL EXCEPTION TO INSTRUCTIONS, SOME OE WHICH ARE CORRECT, RAISES NO QUESTION: EXCEPTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS, MODE OF.
    This cause was here on a former appeal. 22 Iowa, 242. When remanded, it was tried to a jury, which found for tbe plaintiff, and assessed the damages at one cent. An offer by tbe defendant having been properly made, to confess judgment for an amount larger than the verdict, tbe court rendered judgment against the plaintiff for the subsequent costs.
    The plaintiff appeals, and bis only assignment of error is, that tbe court erred in its instructions to tbe jury.
    
      Patt&rson & Eheina/rt for tbe appellant — MeJunkin & Henderson for tbe appellee.
   Dillon, Ch. J,

The bill of exceptions substituted by agreement of parties for the lost original, contains a portion of the charge of the court, and a portion of tbe instructions gi/oen to the jury at the defendant’s instance, and concludes in these words: “ To the giving of all of such instructions, plaintiff at tbe time excepted.” Tbe record shows that there were other instructions given. The appellant does not claim that all those given were erroneous. Some of the instructions were undoubtedly correct. Grouping the instructions given by the court, and those given on tbe motion of the defendant, and excepting to all of them in this general manner, some of them being good, will not enable tbe plaintiff to select a portion of them, and have those reviewed in this court. This point has been substantially ruled, and the proper practice stated, in many prior cases. See tbe following: Daven port Gas Light Co. v. Davenport, 13 Iowa, 339; Wilhelmi v. Leonard, id. 330, 583; Cousins v. Westcott, 15 id. 253, 450-3; Brown v. Jefferson Co., 17 id. 339, 343; Lyons v. Thompson, 10 id. 62; Peck v. Hendershott, 14 id. 40; Armstrong v. Pierson, 15 id. 476; Rev. §§ 3058, 3059, 3109.

The written agreement does not state, as appellant’s counsel argues, that the instructions werv properly excepted to.

Affirmed.