Case Name: Chase v. Scott
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1871-01-27
Citations: 33 Iowa 309
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chase v. Scott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 309–318

Head Matter:
Chase v. Scott.
1. Practice: ON appeal. Errors complained of, and tlie prejudice resulting therefrom, must be affirmatively shown by the party complaining, on appeal. Every presumption will be indulged in favor of the ruling of the court below.
2. Refusal of instructions: admission op evidence. It is accordingly held, that the refusal of a correct instruction will not be regarded as erroneous, when the instructions given by the court are not contained in the record. It will be presumed that the instruction refused was sufficiently covered by the court’s charge.
S. - And in the absence of sufficient evidence to determine the question, the appellate court will presume the existence of a state of facts rendering testimony objected to, properly admissible.
4. -And that instructions were properly refused, in the absence of sufficient evidence to show their pertinency. The better practice in such case is not to embody the evidence itself in the bill of exceptions, but a statement of the facts which it tended to establish.
5. Partnership: sale op partner’s interest: lien. Where one partner sells his interest in specific property of the firm, the other partner has the right to retain possession of it for the purpose of settling the business of the partnership.
Appeal from Appanoose Circuit Court.
Thursday, January 27.
Qn the 16tb day of December, 1868, tbe appellant filed his petition in the circuit court of Lucas county, stating that on the 7th day of November, 1868, he purchased of one G. 13. Brooks twelve head of steers, that said steers at the time were being fed by one Turner, in Le Grange, in said county, on a contract to feed until February 1,1869, and that he was in possession of the cattle for the purpose of feeding; that by virtue of his purchase from Brooks, plaintiff became the absolute owner of the cattle; that on or about the 8th day of December, 1868, while plaintiff was the owner of the cattle, the defendant, without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, wrongfully took the said cattle from tbe possession of said Turner, and took them to Chicago where he sold them and converted the proceeds to his own use, wherefore he demands judgment for $814, interest and costs.
The answer originally contained a specific denial of each allegation in the petition.
The venue was changed to Appanoose county, and at the August term, 1869, of the circuit court of that county, the defendant filed an amended answer, setting up an affirmative defense, in substance as follows: That about the 4th of July, 1868, defendant and said Brooks formed a partnership for the purpose of buying and selling stock, whereby Brooks was to furnish all the money necessary to cany on the business.
In pursuance of their partnership, the firm of Brooks & Scott purchased several car loads of stock, that were shipped by B., and sold.
That the twelve head of steers in controversy were purchased by and belonged to the firm.
That on or about the 4th day of November, 1868, the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent; that the firm then had on hand the said twelve head of steers, worth about $400, and about thirty-four head of hogs, worth about $357, which was all the property that belonged to the firm.
That the firm was then indebted for stock purchased and other debts in the sum of about $1,473.83. ■
The answer further charges that the plaintiff well knowing the above facts, and that a controversy had' arisen between Brooks & Scott about the disposition to be made of the twelve head of steers, confederated' with Brooks to cheat and defraud the firm of B. & S./and also the defendant, and to “ divert said property and the proceeds thereof from the payment of the firm debts,” that in pursuance of said fraudulent confederation "the: said Brooks made a sham sale of: said property to the - plaintiff as his own individual property, when in fact the same belonged to the firm, all of which plaintiff well knew —, also that Brooks was at the time-insolvent.
Defendant further states that at the time of the dissolution of said 'firm, said cattle were in the hands of one Turner under a contract with the firm, to feed until they were called for.
Defendant admits that on or about the day of December, 1868, he took possession of said cattle and shipped them to Chicago, and sold them in good faith to raise money to pay off the indebtedness of the firm, and that he used the money for that purpose afterward.
Defendant also alleges that plaintiff did not agree to pay B. any thing for said cattle, unless he and B. succeeded in diverting said property from the payment of the firm debts.
The cause was tried to a jury. Yerdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Perry & Townsend for the appellant.
Stuart Brothers for the appellee.

Opinion:
Miller, J.
I. Three errors are assigned, the first and second of which we will consider togecher. They are: 1. The court erred in admitting improper testimony; 2. That the court erred in excluding proper testimony offered by appellant.
There is no attempt to give all the evidence; not even its substance is given in the record. There are six separate bills of exceptions, each giving a small portion of evidence and the ruling of the court admitting or excluding certain testimony, but in no instance is there enough of the evidence given to enable us to determine Whether the several rulings of the- court were erróiieouá ' or otherwise. ' • ' ' •
Every presumption will be indulged in favor of tlie ruling of tbe court below, and a party alleging error must make it appear affirmatively in tbe record. Tbe errors complained of we will not presume to exist. The appellant must show them affirmatively, and that they have actually prejudiced his case, neither of which appear from the meagre and unsatisfactory extracts of the evidence contained in the several bills of exceptions. Fletcher v. Burroughs et ux., 10 Iowa, 557; Coldren & Co. v. Cole et al., 19 id. 565; Smith v. Melburn, 17 id. 30; Doniphan and Hughes v. Street, id. 317; Pelalmourges v. Clark, 9 id. 1; Woodward v. Horst, 10 id. 120; Dawson v. Wisner, 11 id. 6; Pierce Bros. and Flanders v. S. E. Locke & Co., id. 454, and other cases that might be cited.
II. The third error assigned is, the refusal of the court to give the instructions asked by appellant.
Some of these instructions contain correct statements of the law, and may have been applicable to the case as made by the evidence. But the appellant has.failed to show, by bill of exceptions or otherwise, that the court did. not give in his charge, or other form, correct instructions upon the law applicable to the case. The charge of the court is not given in the record, and the appellee insists that all the instructions asked by plaintiff, that were correct, were substantially given in the charge of the court. Is the appellant, by failing to include the charge of the court in his abstract, from which we would be enabled to determine whether there was or was not error in the refusal of the court to give the instructions asked by him, entitled to a reversal, because some of the instructions asked and refused are correct statements of the law and applicable? ¥e think not. This would be allowing a party to take advantage of his own wrong. It was held in The State v. Johnson, 19 Iowa, 230, that " the judgment of the court below will not be reversed for the refusal of the court to give instructions, though unobjectionable, when the record does not contain all the instructions given to the jury." By section 3524 of the Revision, it is the duty of the appellant to bring up a perfect transcript, so as to show affirmatively the errors complained of, if they exist; and now, under rule 20 of this court, he is required to file printed " copies of an abstract or abridgment of the record, setting forth so much thereof as is necessary to a full understanding of all the guest-ions presented to this court for decision." This, the appellant has failed to do, in not embodying the instructions gimen by the court as well as those refused.
Affirmed.