Case Name: F. K. Wallick, Guardian, and F. K. Wallick, Appellants, v. William Pierce
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1897-05-22
Citations: 102 Iowa 746
Docket Number: 
Parties: F. K. Wallick, Guardian, and F. K. Wallick, Appellants, v. William Pierce.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 746–746

Head Matter:
F. K. Wallick, Guardian, and F. K. Wallick, Appellants, v. William Pierce.
Trial de Novo: record on evidence. Where an equity case is appealed for trial de novo, the abstract must show that it contains all the evidence offered, whether received or rejected by the lower court.
Appeal from Cedar District Court. — Hon. William P. Wole, Judge.
Saturday, May 22, 1897.
Suit in equity to enjoin defendant from trespassing upon the property of one John M. May, and from removing stone therefrom. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership of the land, from which he had removed stone, and averred the fact to be that the land which May claimed to own, and from which he removed the rock, was a part of the bed of the Cedar river, which is a navigable stream. The case was tried to the court, resulting in a decree dismissing the plaintiff’s petition, and they appeal.—
Affirmed.
Wm. Treichler for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
Deemer, J.
This is an equity cause, triable here de novo if at all, and the abstract must show that we have all the evidence offered, received, or introduced. A statement that it contains all the evidence introduced and received is not sufficient, for we must have all the evidence offered, whether received or rejected by the lower court. Reed v. Larrison, 77 Iowa, 399; Taylor v. Kier, 54 Iowa, 645; Tuttle v. Story County, 56 Iowa, 316; Marble Works v. Linesenmeyer, 80 Iowa, 253; Bank v. Ash, 85 Iowa, 74. The statement made by appellant with reference to this matter is that "the abstract is a full, true, and complete one of all the evidence offered and received, as well as introduced and received." The evidence offered and rejected is not set out. We cannot try the case de novo and, as no errors are assigned, there is nothing to consider. Reed v. Larrison, supra. For the reasons first above stated, the judgment is aeeirmed.