Freeman v. Hart

• Decision Date: 21 September 1883
• Citation: 16 N.W. 597,61 Iowa 525
• Parties: FREEMAN v. HART ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

16 N.W. 597

61 Iowa 525

FREEMAN v. HART ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Council Bluffs

September 21, 1883

Appeal from Benton District Court.

ACTION IN EQUITY. The defendant, Hart, obtained a judgment in an action before a justice of the peace against one Verhaven and the latter appealed therefrom to the circuit court. The appeal bond was in the penalty of fifty dollars, and was signed by the plaintiff as surety. On the trial in the circuit court, judgment was rendered against Verhaven and the plaintiff for three dollars damages, and one hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-five cents costs.

The petition states that the plaintiff was not a party to the action, except as surety, as above stated, in the circuit court, and made no appearance therein. "But the court without authority, and by mistake, rendered judgment against the plaintiff for $ 152.82, on the 5th day of June 1880." "On the 24th day of June, 1880, plaintiff fully performed and discharged his undertaking and obligation in said appeal bond, by paying to the sheriff of Benton county, who then held an execution issued out of the circuit court on said judgment, the full amount of his obligation to-wit, the sum of $ 50. That the plaintiff first learned of the mistake herein alleged about the 24th day of June, 1880; that the defendant, Hart, threatens and is about to sue out of the circuit court an execution on said judgment against plaintiff, and will do so if not restrained by injunction; that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law." The relief asked is that the injunction be made perpetual, and for general and equitable relief.

There was a demurrer to the petition, on the ground that the facts stated in the petition do not entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded. The demurrer was overruled, and defendants appeal.

REVERSED.

Gilchrist and Haines, for appellant.

Nichols and Burnham, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, J.

If the circuit court had jurisdiction over the plaintiff and the subject-matter when the judgment was rendered, then the demurrer was erroneously overruled. The statute provides in relation to appeals from a justice of the peace as follows: "Any judgment in the circuit court against the appellant shall be entered up against him and his sureties jointly." Code § 3594. Counsel for the appellee properly concede that the circuit court had the jurisdiction and power to render a judgment against the plaintiff for fifty dollars.

The plaintiff in the action might not have been entitled to judgment for that amount. The court then had the undoubted power to determine the amount for which judgment should be rendered. This being so, it necessarily follows that the court committed a grave error in rendering judgment against the plaintiff for an amount greater than the penalty of the bond. But the judgment so rendered was not void for want of jurisdiction. It was a valid judgment, at least to the extent of fifty dollars. The question, then, is whether the plaintiff has pursued the proper remedy to get rid of the erroneous portion of the judgment.

The appellee says he has, because he was not a party to the action, and had no right to move the court for its correction, apply for a new trial, or appeal therefrom. But is this so? Counsel for appellee cites and relies on Crites v. Littleton, 23 Iowa 205; Partridge v Harrow, 27 Iowa 96; Barthell v. Roderick, 34 Iowa 517. In the two last cases the error or mistake was not discovered until after the time to move the court to correct the error, or apply for a new trial at law or under the statute, had expired. Therefore, the aggrieved party was remediless, unless he could obtain relief in equity. Not so in the case at bar, for the plaintiff had knowledge of the amount of the judgment within twenty days after it was rendered. The case first cited was an action of replevin, commenced by one Wilson before a justice of...