Case Name: Woodrum v. Carraher
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1886-06-16
Citations: 69 Iowa 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: Woodrum v. Carraher.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 69
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Woodrum v. Carraher.
1. Practice on Appeal: findihs of fact: defective record. Where the abstract does nob claim to contain all the evidence, an objection that the finding of the trial court is not warranted by the evidence cannot be considered.
2.-:--: conflicting evidence. Where the evidence is conflicting, the findings of fact by the court in a law ease will not be disturbed.
Appeal from Fremont Circuit Court.
Wednesday, June 16.
Action to recover at law for money paid defendant in the purchase of land jointly by the parties to this suit; the sum claimed being in excess of the sum which should have been paid by plaintiff. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
W. W. Morgan and Robert Perewal, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
Beok,'J\
The plaintiff claims that he and defendant and another entered into an oral agreement to purchase certain land, each to pay one-third of the purchase-money, and to acquire the title to one-third of the land; that defendant was to make the purchase for himself and the other parties; and that plaintiff and the other person concerned paid defendant a sum largely in excess of the two thirds of the purchase price of the lands. The other person assigned his claim growing out of their transactions to plaintiff. Defendant alleges that he did not agree to act for the other parties in the purchase of the land, but purchased it for himself alone, and sold portions of the land to the others at prices agreed upon by the parties.
II. The only objection made to the judgment is that it is in conflict with the evidence. The abstract does not show an<^ contain an allegation that it presents all the evidence in the case. The certificate of the judge attached to the record of the evidence is printed with the abstract, but it is not averred that the abstract presents all the evidence preserved in the record. We have held, time and again, that the certificate attached to the record, printed with the abstract, without more, is not sufficient to show that all the evideuce is before us.
III. But were the abstract in due form, it would not avail plaintiff, for the case is one of conflict of evidence; plaintiff and the person assigning to him his claim testifying one way, and defendant the other. In such a case we cannot interfere.
The judgment of the circuit court is
Affirmed.