Edwards v. Cosgro

• Decision Date: 11 March 1887
• Citation: 32 N.W. 350,71 Iowa 296
• Parties: SALINA EDWARDS v. COSGRO, AND ANOTHER, INTERVENOR. J. N. EDWARDS v. COSGRO, AND ANOTHER, INTERVENOR.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

71 Iowa 296

32 N.W. 350

SALINA EDWARDS

v.COSGRO, AND ANOTHER, INTERVENOR.

J. N. EDWARDS

v.COSGRO, AND ANOTHER, INTERVENOR.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 11, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Louisa county.

The plaintiffs each recovered a judgment in justice's court against the defendant Cosgro. Executions were issued on these judgments, on which one John Huff was garnished as a supposed debtor of the defendant. The garnishee paid over to the officer who held the executions an amount of money sufficient to satisfy both judgments. The officer thereupon returned the writs, and certified in his return that he had garnished Huff thereon, and that he had received the money from him. He also paid the money so collected to the justice, who made a record of the payment on his docket, and entered an order in each case discharging the garnishee. The garnishee, however, had not answered, nor was any cause docketed against him, nor had notice of the garnishment been served on the defendant Cosgro. While the money remained in the hands of the justice, Tatlock filed a petition of intervention in which he claimed that the money belonged to him, and prayed that he be adjudged to be the owner thereof. This petition was entitled in the cause of Salina Edwards, but by the written agreement of the parties it was made to apply to both cases. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike this petition from the files, which was sustained by the justice. Thereupon the intervenor removed the cause into the circuit court by writ of error, and that court, upon a final hearing, affirmed the order of the justice. Intervenor appeals.E. W. Tatlock, for appellant.

R. Caldwell, C. A. Carpenter, and Arthur Springer, for appellees.

REED, J.

1. The point was made by counsel for appellee that this court did not have jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that the amount in controversy is less than $100, and there was no certificate of the trial judge that the case involved a question of law on which the opinion of this court was desired. Neither of the judgments against Cosgro amounted to $100, but the two aggregated more than that amount, and the amount of money paid by the garnishee was $105. The intervenor claimed the whole of the money. His petition was entitled in but one of the actions, but, as stated above, the parties agreed that it might be made applicable to both. It was therefore a single proceeding, which involved a claim to the whole amount of money paid by the garnishee.

2. It is next insisted that, if the amount in controversy exceeds $100, the justice did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim made by the intervenor. But no question as to his jurisdiction was raised by the motion on which he disposed of intervenor's petition, and neither he nor the circuit court could have passed upon any such question. The cause was removed into the circuit court for the purpose of having the ruling of the justice, in dismissing the intervenor's petition, reviewed, and that court could pass on such questions only as were raised by the motion; and the appeal to this court brings up for review only such questions as arose in the circuit court, and were there passed upon. We cannot, therefore, on this appeal, consider the question whether the justice had jurisdiction to determine the claim alleged by the intervenor in his petition.

3. The...