Darling v. Blazek

• Decision Date: 05 May 1909
• Citation: 120 N.W. 961,142 Iowa 355
• Parties: DARLING v. BLAZEK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

142 Iowa 355

120 N.W. 961

DARLING

v.BLAZEK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 5, 1909.

Appeal from Superior Court of Cedar Rapids; J. H. Rothrock, Judge.

Action at law to recover upon a promissory note, made by one Rodewald to the defendant Blazek, and by him indorsed in blank. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Tom. H. Milner, for appellant.

F. L. Anderson, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

1. At the commencement of this action, Rodewald, the maker of the note, was a resident of Cedar Rapids, in Linn county, Iowa, and the appellant Blazek, indorser of the note, was a resident of Tama. The action was brought against the maker and indorser jointly in the superior court of Cedar Rapids. Appellant appeared to the action, and, upon showing of his residence in Tama county, asked that the cause be removed to the district court of that county for trial. The motion was denied, and error is assigned on the ruling. The objection here made raises two questions for consideration: First, whether maker and indorser of negotiable paper may properly be joined as defendants in an action brought to enforce its collection; and, second, if they may be joined as defendants in the same action, was the venue thereof properly laid in Linn county? It is true, as suggested by counsel, that in the strict sense of the word “maker” and “indorser” are not parties to the same contract, but it has long been the rule in this state that all parties liable upon the same negotiable instrument, whether as makers, indorsers, or guarantors, may be joined as defendants in an action wherever jurisdiction of the parties is properly acquired. See Code, §§ 3043, 3465, and cases cited in the annotations thereto. Concerning venue, the statute further provides: “Personal actions except as otherwise provided must be brought in county in which some of the defendants actually reside. * * * In all actions upon negotiable paper except when made payable at a particular place in which any maker thereof being a resident of the state is defendant, place of trial shall be limited to a county wherein some one of such makers resides.” Code, § 3501. Prior to the amendment of this provision by the enactment of the last clause thereof, it had been held that venue of a joint action could be laid in the county of the indorser's residence, although the makers were residents of another county. Stout v. Noteman, 30 Iowa, 414. But the law as it now stands would seem to require that an action in which the makers, if residents of this state, are sought to be impleaded as defendants, shall be brought in a county where one or more of them resides. But this provision in no manner abrogates the rule by which it is allowable to join the indorser as a defendant, even though he happens to reside in another county. In other words, Linn county, the admitted place of the maker's residence, was the only place where Rodewald could be sued on this note. It follows of necessity that plaintiff having the right, as we have seen, to join maker and indorser as defendants in the same suit, the Cedar Rapids court did not err in retaining jurisdiction of the action as to both. The exception to the general provision of Code, § 3501, is in favor...