Opinion ID: 7119193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The answer pleaded by defendant F. E. Morse contained the following’:

Text: ' tion: evidentiary a eis' ‘.‘She denies that the said promissory note was, at the time of the death of the said John-N. Bringham, the property of the said John N. Bringham, but she alleges the truth to be that said promissory note has been, since about a week after the signing thereof, surrendered and delivered to her by the said John N. Bringham as a gift [to compensate her and her husband, Wayland Morse, for the care and keeping of the mother of this defendant, extend’ng over a period of about 22 years, up to the time of her death, which occurred about the month of July, 1914, and for the care and keeping extended by them to the said John N. Bringham for many years during his lifetime, and for services rendered his daughter, Mrs. Ollie M. Noland, involving the expense of bringing her body from the state of Washington for the purpose of burial in Dallas County, Iowa, and for money disbursed and expended by the said answering defendant and her husband in the prosecution of all of said purposes]. ’ ’ Upon motion of plaintiff, the court struck from the answer all that part of the foregoing paragraph following the word “gift.” For convenience, we have included in brackets the portion so stricken. The ground of the motion was that the stricken matter was redundant, irrelevant, and immaterial. Complaint is made by appellant of this ruling, and the first ground of reversal is directed thereto. The matter thus stricken was manifestly evidentiary, and there was, therefore, no occasion to plead it. This much the appellants are disposed to concede; but it is also laid as a ground of reversal that tbe court refused that line of evidence. 3' 2tetínkemoraie' consideration. It is undoubtedly true that no consideration need be shown in support of an alleged gift, and yet an existing consideration, either legal or moral, may be an important circumstance in support of proof of gift. In making proof of the alleged gift, the circumstances surrounding parties may be shown, including facts, if any, which would fairly tend as an inducement or motive to the donor to make the gift. This is especially so when it is made to appear that the gift was made by the donor in response to or recognition of such inducing facts. We are impressed from a reading of the record that the trial court drew a rather tight rein upon this line- of evidence. On the other hand, the offer of such evidence was rather indefinite, and without any showing of what the plaintiff proposed to prove. In view of our conclusion upon another feature of the case which will necessitate a new trial, we are disposed not to pass definitely upon this assignment, further than to lay down the broad rule which we have indicated. This will be a sufficient guidance for a future trial. 3. Witnesses: impeachment: inconsistent statements. II. The plaintiff introduced the testimony of the witness Clayton, who detailed a transaction and conversation had by him with the defendant Wayland Morse. This transaction was had in the year 1917. Clayton was at that time in a semipublic service of apportioning liberty bonds to the patriotic people of his community It was his part of the work to make schedules of the financial resources of the various citizens, with a view of determining what amount of bonds should fairly be apportioned to them. Bringham was at that time too ill to be interviewed, and Morse acted for him in scheduling his property. He scheduled the promissory note of $3,000 and the liberty bonds as property of Bringham. This evidence was received over the objection of the defendants, as being incompetent and hearsay, the defendant not being present at the time of the alleged conversation. Error is assigned upon the admission of this testimony. The conversation of Morse, as detailed by this witness, was inconsistent with the testimony given by him as a witness as purchasers. for the defendants. On cross-examination, his attention was directed to the Clayton conversation, and he was fully interrogated thereon. A sufficient basis was laid in this cross-examination for the introduction of the testimony of Clayton as impeaching evidence. We think there was no error at this point. 4. Evidence: ad^•opertyhor talation- III. Bentall, a witness for the plaintiff, was the assessor, and had assessed Bringham in the last two or three years of his life. The $3,000 promissory note was returned by Bringham ^or assessment, and it was so assessed. The evi^ence °£ Bentall was to this effect. It was received over the objection of the defendants that it was hearsay, and error is assigned upon the adverse ruling. This note was assessable, whether owned by Bringham or by Mrs. Morse. If Mrs. Morse did not schedule it for assessment, and if Bringham did, we see no reason for saying that this fact would not be a proper circumstance for the consideration of the jury. This is not saying that if would be conclusive of anything. ' declarations in re ownership. Bentall further testified to statements made to him by Bring-ham concerning his ownership of the $1,500 of bonds. This evidence also was received over objection, and complaint is made thereof. The bonds were not assessed; neither were they assessable. The statement made by Bringham was not a declaration against his interest. It was not made in explanation of his possession. We see no escape from holding that the testimony was improperly admitted. Testimony along the same line was given by the widow of the decedent as to statements made by her husband to her concerning both the promissory note and the bonds. For the same reason, this testimony also was improperly received. Testimony of this character, if improper, was necessarily prejudicial. 6. Gtets: presumption from possession. IV. Defendants requested instruction to the effect that her possession of the note and bonds was presumptive evidence of the ownership thereof. This request was denied, and error is assigned thereon. Granting it to be true that . „ . possession oi personal property is presumptive . -, « n . , ., evidence oi ownership, yet it is not necessarily presumptive evidence of a gift. Under the undisputed evidence herein, the decedent was, in his lifetime, the owner of the property in question, and continued to be the owner thereof until his death, unless such ownership had been divested by a gift-thereof. The defendant set up the affirmative defense that Mrs. Morse acquired her ownership by a gift. The burden was upon her to prove it. Kirchner v. Lenz, 114 Iowa 527; Samson v. Samson, 67 Iowa 253. Unless the fact of gift were proved, then the conceded ownership of the decedent during life presumptively continued to the time of his death, and the possession of the defendants, if such, would become presumptively that of a bailee. We see no error in refusing the requested instruction. For the errors pointed out in Division III hereof, the judgment below must be and is reversed. — Reversed and remanded. Weaver, Preston, and De G-eaee, JJ., concur.