61 N.W. 490 (Iowa 1894), Cottage Hospital v. Merrill

Citation:61 N.W. 490, 92 Iowa 649
Opinion Judge:ROTHROCK, J.
Attorney:Gatch, Connor & Weaver for appellant. Berryhill & Henry for appellee.
Case Date:December 15, 1894
Court:Supreme Court of Iowa

Page 490

61 N.W. 490 (Iowa 1894)

92 Iowa 649




Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 15, 1894

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. S. F. BALLIET, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover the amount alleged to be due on a subscription to the Cottage Hospital at Des Moines. There was a trial by jury, and, at the close of the introduction of the evidence, the court, on motion of the plaintiff, directed the jury to return a verdict for the amount claimed in the petition. From a judgment on the verdict the defendant appeals.


Gatch, Connor & Weaver for appellant.

Berryhill & Henry for appellee.



The suit is founded upon a written instrument, of which the following is a copy: "Whereas, the managers of Cottage Hospital are about to erect a new building, 40x40 feet, on their grounds in the city of Des Moines, I do hereby subscribe for this purpose the sum of one hundred [92 Iowa 650] dollars, payable when said sum shall pay the last bills of the completion. And, further, as a soldier's memorial, I agree to support three beds in said hospital, at a cost of two hundred and fifty dollars each per annum, for ten years from date of completion of said building. The money for this support to be paid to the treasurer of Cottage Hospital, payments quarterly. These beds all for the use of soldiers, but always for use when there are no soldier applicants. (Signed) SAMUEL MERRILL. Des Moines, Iowa May 27, 1887." It appears that the defendant paid the one hundred dollars, which was subscribed

Page 491

for the purpose of completing the building; and the quarterly payments were made for the support of the three hospital beds until September 1, 1891. No question is made as to the completion of the building. It is claimed, however, that the payment of the quarterly installments of the subscription was rightfully withheld, because the object the defendant had in view was to provide for the care of sick and disabled soldiers needing assistance, with the understanding that the three beds should be set apart and maintained free of charge "as a soldier's memorial," and that it should be made known that they were so set apart and maintained, so that soldiers in need of care and attention might avail themselves thereof. And it is averred in the answer, in substance, that neither three nor any...

To continue reading