Case ID: iowa_47/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Day, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tatlock & Wilson v. Heidelbaugh.
    Practice in the supreme court: exceptions: assignment oe error.
    
      Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court.
    
    Tuesday, December 11.
    The plaintiffs claim $97 on account of legal services which they allege they rendered for defendant. The defendant denies that he ever employed plaintiffs, and that they ever rendered any services for him. The cause was originally tried before a justice of the peace, and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff for $75.
    The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where two verdicts were returned for defendant, each of which was set aside on plaintiff’s motion. The cause was tried a third time, resulting in a verdict for defendant. The plaintiff’s motion for new trial was overruled. Plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Tatlock & Wilson, -fox appellant.
    
      B- F. Wright, for appellee.
   Day, Ch. J.

The cause is submitted upon the abstract, without argument by either party. The errors assigned are that the court erred in refusing to instruct as requested, in modifying the instruction asked, in overruling the motion for new trial, and in the law given in instruction number three.

The abstract does not show that any exception was taken to instructions given, refused, or modified. The error assigned upon overruling the motion for new trial is not specific enough, as the motion embraces-three distinct propositions. If, however, it be regarded as presenting the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the abstract does not show that it is an abstract of ail the testimony. Further, if we regard the evidence as all before us, the case presents simply a conflict of evidence, not authorizing our interference.

Affirmed.