Hurd v. Ladner

• Citation: 81 N.W. 470,110 Iowa 263
• Parties: HURD v. LADNER ET AL.
• Decision Date: 19 January 1900
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

110 Iowa 263

81 N.W. 470

HURD

v.LADNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 19, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Hamilton county; B. P. Birdsall, Judge.

Action to recover compensation for the keep and care of live stock, and for services rendered at defendants' instance and request. Trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Geo. Wambach, for appellants.

J. L. Kamrar, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

In the year 1895, defendant Ladner brought suit in the district court of Hamilton county against one Balsley to recover rent for the use of a farm belonging to Ladner. A landlord's writ of attachment issued in that suit, and the writ, together with the written contract of lease between the parties, which contained a mortgage clause, was delivered to defendant Corbin, who was then sheriff of Hamilton county. The sheriff seized certain live stock, consisting of horses, cattle, and hogs, and turned the same over to plaintiff in this case, with the request that he care for the same. Plaintiff took the property, and kept it for several months, and now sues to recover compensation therefor, as well as for certain services rendered in connection therewith.

The trial court submitted but one question to the jury, and that was the value of plaintiff's services. Plaintiff alleged in his petition that, at request of defendants orally made, he kept, cared for, and fed, stock, and did personal labor, as stated in a bill of particulars thereto annexed. Defendants filed a motion asking that plaintiff be required to state whose property it was he kept, cared for, and fed, and at whose instance and for whose benefit he performed the labor specified, and to state when and where such oral agreement was made and entered into between the plaintiff and defendant James Ladner. This motion was overruled, and in this we think the court erred. The petition did not state which one of the defendants made the request, nor did it specifically state at whose instance or for whose benefit the labor was performed. It was so indefinite and uncertain in these respects that the motion should have been sustained. But, as defendants thereafter answered, they waived the error. Kline v. Railway Co., 50 Iowa, 656;Coakley v. McCarty, 34 Iowa, 105.

Defendant Ladner denied that he entered into any contract with plaintiff, or that he authorized any person to do so for him. He also pleaded that the attachment proceedings were commenced without his knowledge or consent, and that defendant Corbin took the property as sheriff, and placed it in the hands of plaintiff as receiptor; that it was the duty of the sheriff to sell the property as perishable; and that, as certain persons who claimed to be owners of the property served notice on the sheriff to release the same, it was his duty to do so. This defendant further pleaded a defect of parties, in that there was no joint liability of defendants for the claim sued upon, and no claim existed in favor of plaintiff and against this defendant. Defendant Corbin denied that he entered into any contract in his individual capacity, and averred that he seized the property as sheriff, under the landlord's writ of attachment, and placed the same, or a part thereof, with plaintiff for the purpose of being kept and cared for by him. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, which tended to show that defendant Corbin, as sheriff, placed the property in his hands, with the request that he keep and care for the same, and that the value of his services was the sum claimed in the petition, and after plaintiff had offered the writ of attachment and the officer's return thereon, defendant Ladner made a motion that the case be dismissed as to him, because there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and himself; because there was a misjoinder of parties defendant, and no evidence showing any cause of action against him, or against the defendants jointly; and because the costs of keeping the attached property should have been taxed in the main suit. The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted. Thereupon defendants introduced evidence to show that the property placed in defendants' hands was taken under the writ of attachment or the mortgage clause in the lease, or both, and some further evidence was adduced tending to show the reasonable value of the care of the...