The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1876-10-06

~ 0A~Aa. s~aeenssa ~ sAAs 10
- k1sA.i. - ~ tsseiss NJ $50
49,. AMa ~ tAs AsiAnr& \ ksIi "A
~ II ! wv u ss~s~t ~AsAa " sAvss
~esvhss&@. salsA tA.s sA<~sa ~,
l~aos1 u shsM ~ NJ nsAs y -.
seeA aas sissf this sssssevMsnt.
llsea \ u sslA rlAisssA shss ssss
~sesrt ~h-ss - pssvAAs~a ~isA VI.
as~ss. Awd ~ sss hsleNs u shsm
u = siss sadsAesssd lAss lieAg 4
~ ssss saAsiMe wheat ~ thets esM
s&sssns WkeH 4 dsmA~A - MAAs
~ ~ Water ~Asss. vlsiasi1 - ".
tssssd u ~ sses psssAAs~a viii u.
sss1ass's ~ssey. as1 ~ then tsc~gAs
- aettsa " ssrlrsis seaisst heAs \
u. n tAs stals sosst. and ~ ; trial
delsAaaas. ksine admitted ~ ! party.
~. ths present defendant. ~as 1sshisd
u ~ the e~Msr.
Il h alss ssaispsssd. defendant 70.
eeivsd from lloag 4 Go. th~ spriae
wheat. aad plsialiG haa never realized
10y more thsa $500 f.r Il. There
was evidences 10 show the msskst valus
u spsiag wheat - The tlss u 10 con
vsfsisa.
Upon these iacts Disclosed, the eoars
Instructed tho jury that ths plaintiff
MS entitled 10 recover. and the meas
urs VI damages would be tho actual
value Of che wheat taken. 81 The time
Of conversion. and that = deduction
from tho amount found should Lc
made u e10o.
The jury rendered . verdict Tor tho
plaintiff. Defendant now moves for Z
new trial. aud urges. that on the un-
disputed facts the court erred In giving
this isstructien. and tho defendant was
entitled % verdict; tina. tho plain.
sid Occupies IN this suit : position III.
eonsistsnt with his previous conduct.
Bigelow. 1laalrau & CLARK. and 5.
l.. Campbell. for plaintiff Wilson 4
Taylsr. far defendants.
Nelson, j. Il ID claimed the plain
It'd cannot MAINTAIN this ssit; that BY
The attempt 10 enforce undor tho ware
house receipt his right TO the winter
wheat. he elected 10 rs,ify tho trans
action with iloag \ TO-. and thereby
affirmed tho title 10 the spring whsat
in Reynolds. tho defendant.
The gsaeral doctrine Of sstoppsl by
election Of remedies. IL assentcd 10.
@ claimed; but this case docs MOI
fall within tho rule, AZ tho time
plaintiff presented his certificate sf
special deposit, and demanded lia
spting wheat. April 20. 1871. hosg
4 Go. had wrongfully parted with II.
Lis legal remedies then were. either
70 sss for The value. Of follow bic
wheat. lie did neither. Bst ilssg Il
Co, agreed 10 allow him S:.lO Dor
buShel, and paid $500 ~ cash. and
.'tsrnsd out" Tor che balance bin Of
winter wheat in their waSsLovss. Of.
asming that Il belonged " then.
In this TRANSACTIONS. the title to she
winter wheat was warranted when
lloag h Co. gave tho warehouse r..
ceipl. subsequently when inkrmcd
they we're not the owners. plaintiff
couamssssd ssit 10 settle shs question.
In hin effort " obtain possession he
failed. and Tho defendant " this suis
VS. declared 10 b ths owner. This
result determined that lioag Il Co., J
bad not ful1llsd The conditions Of tho
sale. and had nos satisfied Tho deman
Vt the plaintiff. The ssls wae not to
~ conoludsd until tLs winter wheat
sams into BIZ actual possession. Ii
condilionsl sale 81 ehss.sls Il made,
and The vsndss fails to perform, The
vendor saa recover biz property. o. IT,
vslus; and u Tho ssls aud delivery u
Induced BY fraud. tbs property Of II.
vslss can b recovered FROM the Won.
dee Notwithstanding 10 manual ira
ditioa. ~ from Any person claiming
title through bin. The failure u
ownership IN Hoag & 60. determined
By ~ result Of Ne rsplcvin suit. r.
mistsd pIainti6 . Oh ths remedies 10
possessed whss b demanded bis spec
I'll deposit. sod this defendant, being
equally guilty Of conversion, i liable.
Il snakes no difference. that can per-
esive, that legal Proceedings were TAX.
On 10 settle the eitls 20 The winter
wheat, The demand Of The plain tid
was not salisesd. - that suit dssss.
mined. and Tho title 70 the spring
wheat did not par from sho plaintiff
By this transaction With noag 4 Go.
i 10 urged that the acceptance Of
$500, IN part payment. and failure 10
return il. 10 Inconsistent with the II.
teis To recover In this action
Ordinarily tho party who reseiuds 4
contract should return all hc Eas 70.
csivsd upon il. This II .nly neces-
sary 10 place himself In his original 20.
sitlon. Nut hero Is 10 manifest Hong
\ u. could not rcatore tho u r,nu
wheat, and plaintiff Wan not obliged to
tender Or return tho $500.
Tho plaintiff should 10 indcmnifed
- tho extent u his lo>s Gully. and ~
llosg K Co. were she agents Of Roy.
holds. il was proper that Judgment
should Gc .cdue. pro tsnto. | lind
no error ulon full review u tliv case.
New trial denied.
Dlllun. circui. Judge. ! concur In
tho foregoing opinion.
IAsErrx. Iowa, Sept 2e.- Tbs
important railroad decision Il Council