Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 60335

Decision Date19 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 60335,60335
Citation264 N.W.2d 763
PartiesR. Fred DUMBAUGH, Trustee, Appellee, v. CASCADE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Dave Hughes, Cascade, for appellant.

R. L. Donohue, Donohue Law Office, West Union, for appellee.

Considered by MOORE, C. J., and MASON, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.

REYNOLDSON, Justice.

The controlling question is whether this litigation should have been permitted to proceed over defendant's repeated motions to dismiss on the ground there was no plaintiff in esse. We hold the action should have been dismissed and reverse the judgment entered below.

Defendant Cascade Manufacturing Company, a building materials supplier, delivered components for a structure to be built on a site owned by West, one of its dealers. West was to pay cash but his financing arrangement fell through. Upon his request Cascade picked up the materials on April 24, 1974.

May 2, 1974, West filed petition for voluntary bankruptcy.

May 14, 1974, R. Fred Dumbaugh was named trustee in bankruptcy.

March 14, 1975, Dumbaugh as trustee brought this action in Dubuque district court against Cascade, claiming return of the building materials was a preference and demanding judgment for its value.

February 9, 1976, the bankruptcy estate was closed and Dumbaugh was discharged as trustee.

June 14, 1976, Dumbaugh amended his petition and moved for summary judgment.

Answering, Cascade affirmatively denied plaintiff Dumbaugh's status as trustee, and moved to dismiss.

July 6, 1976, hearing was held. Cascade introduced into evidence a certified copy of the bankruptcy court order closing the estate and discharging Dumbaugh. Trial court admitted the exhibit but overruled Cascade's motion to dismiss, as well as Dumbaugh's motion for summary judgment.

September 16, 1976, this case came on for trial. Before evidence was introduced, Cascade again moved to dismiss on the basis of the certified copy of the bankruptcy court order. This motion was renewed at close of plaintiff's evidence, defendant pointing out the essential allegation of the petition relating to plaintiff's status and capacity to pursue the action had not been proved. The motion was renewed at close of all evidence. All these motions were overruled.

September 29, 1976, trial court entered written "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order." The court found Dumbaugh was trustee when suit was instituted, but had been discharged as indicated in the bankruptcy court order. The court concluded Cascade had no perfected mechanic's lien as against West's creditors, the redelivery was a preference, and "the trustee is entitled to recover the reasonable value thereof or $8,119.73."

Trial court found "no such person as R. Fred Dumbaugh, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Leslie George West is in existence at this time," it could make no order substituting a new party plaintiff without some showing who was entitled to succeed to the claim and:

"Because of the foregoing, the Court, having no plaintiff in esse, must abate the action pending further showing of who constitutes a proper party plaintiff."

There is some indication in the appendix that on October 28, 1976, the bankruptcy court reopened the trust and reinstated Dumbaugh as trustee. Apparently a copy of that order was filed in this proceeding. Dumbaugh requested he be "reinstated as party-plaintiff."

January 17, 1977, trial court "reinstated" Trustee Dumbaugh as party plaintiff in this action and without further evidence rendered judgment against Cascade for $8,119.73.

Ordinarily, litigation in this jurisdiction minimally requires one plaintiff and one defendant. See rule 22 and following, Rules of Civil Procedure. It is an elementary rule of law that a party plaintiff must have capacity to sue in order to commence and maintain an action. Pearson v. Anthony, 218 Iowa 697, 700, 254 N.W. 10, 12 (1934).

Of course a transfer of interest in a pending action does not abate it,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Segura v. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 13 January 2017
    ...plaintiff must have the capacity to sue in order to commence and maintain an action in district court." (quoting Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co. , 264 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Iowa 1978) )). When a claimant has the capacity, even if they do not attach proof with their initial claim, the claim is not b......
  • Huffey v. Lea
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 21 October 1992
    ...during the marriage. A party plaintiff must have capacity to sue in order to commence and maintain an action. Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 264 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Iowa 1978). Our test for standing is that "the complaining party have a specific, personal, and legal interest in the litigation, ......
  • Herrick v. Paulsen (In re Herrick)
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • 29 April 2014
    ...plaintiff's capacity to sue by motion to dismiss based on facts that occurred subsequent to filing of petition); Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 264 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 1978) (plaintiff, trustee in bankruptcy, had capacity to sue when suit was commenced; however, he lost capacity during pendency......
  • Estate of Voss, Matter of
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 18 September 1996
    ...that a plaintiff must have the capacity to sue in order to commence and maintain an action in district court. Dumbaugh v. Cascade Mfg. Co., 264 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Iowa 1978). One reason we require that a lawsuit be brought by the real party in interest is to protect the defendant from multipl......
  • 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