Hodges v. Tama Cnty.

• Decision Date: 04 October 1894
• Citation: Hodges v. Tama Cnty., 91 Iowa 578, 60 N.W. 185 (Iowa 1894)
• Parties: HODGES v. TAMA COUNTY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

91 Iowa 578

60 N.W. 185

HODGES

v.TAMA COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 4, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Tama county; Lot Thomas, Judge.

This case was brought under section 3408 of the Code, which provides that “parties to a question of difference which might be the subject of a civil action, may without action present an agreed statement of the facts thereof to any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter.” Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals, the trial judge having granted a certificate as provided in section 3173 of the Code. Appeal dismissed.C. B. Bradshaw, for appellant.

W. H. Stivers, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. The question certified arises under chapter 70, Acts 20th Gen. Assem., as amended by chapter 42, Acts 22d Gen. Assem., and is stated as follows: “Where a domestic animal is injured by dogs whose owner is unknown, and the owner of said injured animal cares for said animal the best that could be done, in hopes of curing it, until after sixty days from the date of the injury by dogs, when, on account of such injuries, it became necessary to kill such injured animal, which was then done, and where the claim of said owner for compensation for said injury by dogs was filed with the auditor of the county more than sixty days after the animal was first injured, but within sixty days after it was killed as aforesaid, was such filing of said claim within the sixty-days limitation of said statutes, or is the claim barred by reason of being filed more than sixty days after the time the animal was first injured?” Said chapter, after providing for the assessment and collection of the tax on dogs, and that such tax shall be kept as a special fund, “to be known as the Domestic Animal Fund,” provides as follows: “Any person damaged by the killing or injury of sheep, or any other domestic animal, by a dog or dogs, may present to the board of supervisors of the county in which such killing or injury occurred, a detailed account of such killing or injury, stating the amount of damage claimed therefor, and verified by affidavit, such claim to be filed with the county auditor, at least ten days before some regular session of the board and within sixty days from the time such killing or injury occurred. At the first regular session of the board of supervisors after such claims shall have been filed for ten days as herein provided, the same may be established by proof before the board; and upon the hearing thereof the claimant shall establish his claim for damages by testimony satisfactory to the board. It shall also be made to appear to the satisfaction of said board that such damage was not caused in whole or in part, by a dog or dogs owned or controlled by the claimant, and that claimant does not know whose dog or dogs caused the damage, and that said damage was caused by dogs; or, in case the owner of such dog or dogs is known to the claimant, and that such owner has no property subject to execution, out of which the claim can be made. The board shall hear and determine said claims in the order in which they are filed unless good cause is shown for continuance, and shall allow the same or such portions thereof as they may deem just, and shall authorize the auditor to issue warrants for the same not to exceed seventy-five per cent. of the amount allowed to be paid out of the domestic animal fund.” Section 6 provides for paying such warrants between the 1st and 10th days of January and July of the year, out of said fund, and that if the fund is insufficient the warrants be paid pro rata; also that if, at any period named, there shall remain more than $250 after paying all such warrants, it shall be transferred to the county fund. See McClain's Code, § 2292.

2. Counsel for appellee, while conceding that the question of jurisdiction was not made below, contends that the district court had no jurisdiction of the matter in controversy,...