Cottage Hospital v. Merrill

• Decision Date: 15 December 1894
• Citation: 61 N.W. 490,92 Iowa 649
• Parties: COTTAGE HOSPITAL v. SAMUEL MERRILL, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

61 N.W. 490

92 Iowa 649

COTTAGE HOSPITAL v. SAMUEL MERRILL, Appellant

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.

Affirmed.

Gatch Connor & Weaver for appellant.

Berryhill & Henry for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

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 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 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 other number of beds have been set apart as a soldier's memorial, or to be occupied by sick and disabled soldiers; and that no notice, public or private, has been given that said provision was made for soldiers; and that by reason of such neglect of the plaintiff, the beds have been generally occupied by persons other than soldiers; and...