Bos Lines, Inc. v. Phillips & Phillips, 2--56459
Decision Date | 19 March 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 2--56459,2--56459 |
Parties | BOS LINES, INC., Appellant, v. PHILLIPS & PHILLIPS et al., Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard P. Moore, of Moyer & Bergman, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Mack, Hansen & Gadd, Storm Lake, for appellees.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and MASON, REES, UHLENHOPP and REYNOLDSON, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals dismissal of its law action pursuant to rule 134(b)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to produce books and documents as required by order of the trial court. We affirm.
On June 7, 1971 plaintiff filed its three-division petition claiming defendants owed it $4075 based on an executed oral contract. Division I alleged breach of an oral agreement wherein plaintiff was to receive a set fee per truckload for the use of its interstate operating authority by defendants. Division II pleaded failure by defendants to pay an account stated and Division III alleged nonpayment of an open account.
Following disposition of motions attacking the petition and considerable discovery proceedings, defendants filed their answer on December 29, 1971 denying any liability to plaintiff. March 31, 1972 defendants filed a counterclaim alleging plaintiff owed them $7576 unpaid revenues arising out of the parties' same trucking agreement. Plaintiff filed reply thereto on April 10, 1972.
On June 12, 1972, defendants filed a motion to produce certain described books and papers then in plaintiff's possession. The motion was made pursuant to rule 129, R.C.P. A hearing on said motion was ordered with notice, and held June 19, 1972. Plaintiff's counsel did not attend the hearing. On the latter date the trial court entered the following order:
On July 31, 1972 defendants filed combined motions to strike plaintiff's petition, strike plaintiff's reply to their counterclaim and for default and judgment on their counterclaim. Defendants attached a copy of the June 19 order and set out the fact plaintiff had not complied therewith. The motion specifically referred to, and defendants based their motion on, rule 134(b)(2), R.C.P. which in relevant part provides:
'If any party * * * refuses to obey an order made under subdivision (a) of this rule requiring him * * * to produce any document or other thing for inspection * * *, the court may make such orders in regard to the refusal as are just, and among others the following:
'* * *
'An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, * * *, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof * * *.'
On August 11, 1972 in response to the combined motions plaintiff stated:
'Comes now the plaintiff and hereby resists the combined motions to dismiss, strike, and for judgment by default, and hereby requests the opportunity to be heard orally on the aforementioned motions.'
On April 2, 1973 District Judge Richard W. Cooper entered the following:
By agreement and request of counsel date for hearing was continued to 10:00 a.m., May 7, 1973.
On May 7 Judge Cooper entered the following
On June 5, 1973 plaintiff applied to this court to appeal from the dismissal order of May 7 which plaintiff referred to as interlocutory. We granted plaintiff's request on June 18, 1973.
I. Plaintiff's first issue raised on this appeal presents this question: 'Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction of dismissal absent a finding that the presumed failure to produce documents was willful?'
Plaintiff's brief concedes the trial court has discretion under rule 134(b)(2) to dismiss an action for refusal to obey an order to produce documents. This seems...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haumersen v. Ford Motor Co.
...Sandhorst v. Mauk's Transfer, Inc., 252 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa); Smiley v. Twin City Beef Co., 236 N.W.2d 356 (Iowa); Bos Lines, Inc. v. Phillips & Phillips, 226 N.W.2d 819 (Iowa); Zimmerman v. Purex Corp., Ltd., 256 Iowa 190, 125 N.W.2d 822. In each case, we held the order to be within the discr......
-
Suckow v. Boone State Bank & Trust Co., 65960
...to ... interrogator(ies)...." 236 N.W.2d at 358 (emphasis in original). We affirmed the sanction. Id. at 360. In Bos Lines, Inc. v. Phillips, 226 N.W.2d 819, 820-21 (Iowa 1975), the plaintiff's petition was dismissed after it failed to comply with an order to produce papers and records. We ......
-
Recker v. Gustafson, 61176
...to reconsider or set aside a previous order is not appealable. Error, if any, is upon the previous ruling. Bos Lines, Inc. v. Phillips & Phillips, 226 N.W.2d 819, 821 (Iowa 1975); Stover v. Central Broadcasting Co., 247 Iowa 1325, 1331, 78 N.W.2d 1, 5 (1956). But the rule does not apply whe......
-
Smiley v. Twin City Beef Co.
...We have decided two cases under this rule, Zimmerman v. Purex Corporation, Ltd., 256 Iowa 190, 125 N.W.2d 822 and Bos Lines, Inc. v. Phillips & Phillips, Iowa, 226 N.W.2d 819. In each we hold action under rule 134(d) is discretionary with the trial court under the wording of the rule and th......