Opinion ID: 1898007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We shall first direct our attention to the conditional new trial order.

Text: Plaintiffs' attorney attempted to introduce evidence disclosing the borrow area had not been restored prior to December 31, 1967. Upon defendant's motion, by order in limine, trial court prohibited subsequent reference thereto. Plaintiffs' counsel thereafter attempted to inject that issue into the case by testimonial reference and in jury argument. Instructions given by trial court directed the jury to give this subject no consideration in the determination of any damages awarded. Additionally, in course of trial and argument, plaintiffs' attorney alluded to relative financial worth of the parties. He also endeavored, by use of leading questions on cross-examination of a defendant called witness, to place in evidence value of other property regardless of comparability or relationship to the instant project. Furthermore, plaintiffs unsuccessfully attempted, by offer of proof, to show a decline in purchasing power of the dollar from time of comparable sales shown to date of trial. And an effort was made by plaintiffs' counsel to divulge the damage award allowed on first trial of this case. Then in jury argument, counsel for plaintiffs stated legal technicalities and trial court rulings prevented the jury from having benefit of all the facts. As aforesaid, defendant successfully urged a new trial be ordered because of the foregoing. II. On appeal plaintiffs take the position their attorney's conduct was not improper, or in no event prejudicial, and trial court erred in ordering a new trial absent remittitur as directed. By way of exclusion, it is not for us to instantly consider any errors in course of trial here asserted by plaintiffs. As stated in Herman & Marks v. Hass, 166 Iowa 340, 342-343, 147 N.W. 740, 742: The appellant in argument assigns a number of alleged errors committed upon the trial which it contends were prejudicial to it upon such trial. However, such errors, if any, are not available to the plaintiff as appellant on this appeal. Errors committed against it on the trial of the case were all cured by the verdict in its favor. Having won the verdict, all errors, if any, proved nonprejudicial to it. The only grievance which it now has in the subsequent order of the court granting a new trial. It is from such order alone that it could appeal. The order granting a new trial cannot be assailed by the appellant upon the mere ground that the trial court committed errors against it upon the trial. Cf. Schrader v. Sioux City, 167 N.W.2d 669, 672-673 (Iowa).