Bice v. Incorporated City of Urbandale

Decision Date05 April 1966
Docket NumberNo. 51988,51988
Citation258 Iowa 1013,141 N.W.2d 639
PartiesMarjorie P. BICE, Appellant, v. The INCORPORATED CITY OF URBANDALE, Iowa, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

J. Blaine Phipps, Des Moines, for appellant.

Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, for appellee.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Plaintiff caused a petition to be filed in Polk County District Court by which she sought damages from defendant city.

Concurrently an instrument designated original notice was served upon the city clerk, the material portions of which provided as follows: 'IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF IOWA IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY * * *

'TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT:

'You are hereby notified that the petition of the above-named plaintiff is now on file with the Clerk of the above-named Court, demanding of you judgment in the amount of $20,000.

'FOR FURTHER PARTICULARS, SEE COPY OF PETITION ATTACHED HERETO.

'You are further notified that unless you so appear before the above-named Court within 20 days after service of this notice upon you, your default will be entered and judgment rendered against you as prayed for in plaintiff's petition. * * *'

By special appearance defendant challenged jurisdiction of the court due to plaintiff's failure to name, in her original notice, the city or town where the court convened.

The trial court sustained defendant's special appearance and plaintiff appealed.

I. The relevant portions of rule 50, R.C.P., provide as follows: 'The original notice shall be directed to the defendant, and signed by plaintiff or his attorney with the signer's address. It shall name the plaintiff, the court, and The city or town, and county where the court convenes. It shall state either that the petition is on file in the office of the clerk of the court where the action is brought, or that it will be so filed by a stated date, which must not be more than ten days after service. It shall notify defendant to appear before said court within the specified number of days after service required by rule 53 or rule 54, and that unless he so appears, his default will be entered and judgment or decree rendered against him for the relief demanded in the petition. * * *.' (Emphasis supplied)

We have previously held the requirements of the rule which we have underlined are mandatory; compliance with these clearly enunciated dictates is essential to jurisdiction of the court; and that rule 50 has the status of a statute. Summerlott v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 253 Iowa 121, 125--126, 111 N.W.2d 251, 93 A.L.R.2d 371.

Furthermore, the terms and provisions of the subject rule are clear and unmistakable and may not be changed or altered because of hardship or misfortune which may at times result from its application. Evans v. Ober, 256 Iowa 708, 713, 129 N.W.2d 78.

And in Parkhurst v. White, 254 Iowa 477, 481, 118 N.W.2d 47, 49, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Eastern Iowa Light & Power Co-op. v. Interstate Power Co., 53220
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 January 1969
    ...of Manson, 256 Iowa 957, 962, 129 N.W.2d 744. Compliance with the rules relative to notice is mandatory. Bice v. Incorporated City of Urbandale, 258 Iowa 1013, 1015, 141 N.W.2d 639. 'The right of appeal is purely a creature of statute. If an appeal is to be taken notice thereof must be give......
  • Marks v. Shinrone, Inc.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 28 August 1974
    ...164 N.W.2d 79, 80 (Iowa 1969); Gordon v. Doden, 261 Iowa 285, 287, 154 N.W.2d 146, 147 (1967); Bice v. Incorporated City of Urbandale, 258 Iowa 1013, 1015, 141 N.W.2d 639, 640 (1966); Parkhurst v. White, 254 Iowa 477, 480, 118 N.W.2d 47, 49 (1962). Our holdings have been criticized as hyper......
  • McArtor v. Pete's Cafe
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 March 1970
    ...of action and was fatally defective. The rule of liberal construction of irregularities did not apply.' Bice v. Incorporated City of Urbandale, 258 Iowa 1013, 1015, 141 N.W.2d 639, 640, contains this, '* * * (A) failure to comply with the precise and clearly stated requirements of rule 50 i......
  • Bentler v. Poulson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 5 April 1966
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT