Fanning v. Krapfl

• Decision Date: 16 June 1883
• Citation: 61 Iowa 417,16 N.W. 293
• Parties: FANNING v. KRAPFL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

61 Iowa 417

16 N.W. 293

FANNING

v.KRAPFL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 16, 1883.

Supplemental opinion.

PER CURIAM.

As to whether the published notice could have been deemed sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, if it had appeared as a fact from the petition demurred to that she was the wife of John C. Hopkins, we did not determine.We could not find the fact, and that, of course, ended our inquiry.We are now asked to reconsider this question of fact.In a petition for rehearing it is insisted by the appellee, as in his original argument, that a statement by the appellant that the published notice described T. P. B. Hopkins as the wife of John C. Hopkins was equivalent to a statement by the appellant that she was in fact the wife of John C. Hopkins.We said upon this point, in our original opinion, all that we desire to say.But an additional point is made by the appellee.Our attention is called, for the first time, to an exhibit attached to the appellant's petition, to-wit, a copy of his deed from W. R. I. Hopkins, from whom he derived title.This exhibit is referred to in the petition and made part of it.In it T. P. B. Hopkins is not only described by her true name, Trianda Phelia Boyd Hopkins, but she is described further as “wife of John Castell Hopkins.”The appellee insists that the setting out of this exhibit is equivalent to an admission by the appellant that T. P. B. Hopkins was in fact the wife of John C. Hopkins.But in our opinion this position cannot be sustained.The petition contains no admission in form--it contains nothing but averments.We have the question, then, as to whether there is any averment that T. P. B. Hopkins was the wife of John C. Hopkins.To determine this, we have only to inquire whether, upon the supposition that the fact was material to the...