Hurlbut, Hess & Co. v. Hardenbrook
| Decision Date | 25 May 1892 |
| Citation | 52 N.W. 510,85 Iowa 606 |
| Parties | HURLBUT, HESS & COMPANY, Appellants, v. GEORGE HARDENBROOK, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
WEDNESDAY MAY 25, 1882.
Appeal from Audubon District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Nash Phelps & Green, for appellant.
I. L Statzell and J. M. Griggs, for appellee.
THE facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Affirmed.
This is an action on an account, and also on certain notes against the defendant, in which an attachment was issued, and a levy made on the defendant's stock of goods and building in which they were situated. The notes were not due when the suit was commenced. The grounds alleged for an attachment were as follows: "That defendant is about to remove from the state, and refuses to make any arrangement for securing the payment of said notes when they fall due, which contemplated removal was not known to the plaintiff herein at the time said debt was contracted, or at the time said notes were executed." "The defendant is about to remove permanently out of the state, and refuses to pay or secure the debt due the plaintiff." The petition contained the other necessary averments. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, that they had not been paid, that the account declared upon was just, that the plaintiff was a corporation; and denied all other allegations of the petition. By way of counterclaim on the attachment bond he set out the attachment and levy, the bond, its condition and breaches. He averred that the grounds alleged for the issuance of the attachment were untrue, and that the plaintiff had no reasonable ground for believing the same to be true; that the writ was wrongfully and maliciously sued out; and asked damages in the sum of five thousand dollars. In an amendment he itemizes his damages, which covered attorneys' fees, depreciation in value of his goods, rental value of store building, loss of employment for himself and clerk, expenses incurred in attendance at court, and costs incurred by reason of the wrongful suing out of the writ. The plaintiff, replying, admitted issuance of writ and levy thereunder on the goods; also that the grounds for the issuance of the writ were as alleged; that it filed the bond; that the damages claimed were not paid; and denied all other allegations in the counterclaim. After the issues were formed the defendant paid the plaintiff's claim, and the case was tried only on the issues as presented by the counter-claim, and a verdict rendered for the defendant for four hundred and seventy dollars. The court required the defendant to remit all of the verdict in excess of three hundred and fifty dollars, overruled the motion for a new trial, and entered a judgment on the verdict for three hundred and fifty dollars, from which the plaintiff appeals.
I. It is said that the court erred in admitting evidence as to the rental value of the defendant's building, and in instructing the jury that the defendant could recover therefor. It appears that no direction was given to the sheriff to levy on the defendant's building, but he did levy on both stock and building, and kept the goods in said building from December 12, 1889, to February 7, 1890. During said time the building was kept locked, the defendant excluded therefrom, and the sheriff had the key. We do not feel called upon to determine as to whether the plaintiff would be liable for the unauthorized levy by the sheriff on the defendant's building, nor as to its liability for the rental value of the building under the circumstances, for reasons hereafter stated. The court, on entering the judgment, found "that the evidence on the part of the defendant is insufficient to show the occupancy of the building by the officer under the writ of attachment herein was not with the voluntary consent of the defendant, or that it was necessary to preserve and protect the stock of goods therein levied upon, and that the defendant is not, therefore, entitled to recover for the rental value of said building during the term it was so occupied." The court required the defendant to remit the value of the rent, and seventy dollars in addition, and rendered a judgment for the balance. Under these circumstances, even if it be conceded that the court erred in admitting the testimony relating to rent, and in instructing the jury that they might allow therefor, still it could have worked no prejudice to the plaintiff, as the amount remitted was greatly in excess of the rental value of the building as established by the evidence.
II. It is contended that there is no evidence justifying actual damages. The jury, in answer to certain special interrogatories, found that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Coleman
... ... v. Thompson, 112 Pa. St. 118; Land &c. Co. v ... Gillan, 49 S.C. 345; Jones v. Hess, 48 S.W. 46; ... McClung's Exr's. v. Spotswood, 19 Ala. 165; ... Iron Co. v. Baugh, 147 Ala ... 810; Loewer v ... Harris, 57 F. 368; Greve v. Oil Co. (Cal.), 96 ... P. 904; Hurlbut v. Hardenbrook, 85 Iowa 606, 52 N.W ... 510; St. Ry. Co. v. Cotton, 140 Ill. 486; 3 Cyc ... ...
-
Wilder v. Great Western Cereal Co.
... ... See Union Merc. Co. v ... Chandler, 90 Iowa 650, 57 N.W. 595; Hurlbut v ... Hardenbrook, 85 Iowa 606; Kliegel v. Aitken, 94 ... Wis. 432 (69 N.W. 67, 35 L. R. A. 249, ... ...
-
Wilder v. Great W. Cereal Co.
...was cured, however, by the remittitur filed by plaintiff. See Union Merc. Co. v. Chandler, 90 Iowa, 650, 57 N. W. 595;Hulburt v. Hardenbrook, 85 Iowa, 606, 52 N. W. 510;Kliegel v. Aitken (Wis.) 69 N. W. 67, 35 L. R. A. 249, 59 Am. St. Rep. 901. But it is said plaintiff did not remit enough.......
-
Ahrens v. Fenton
...the ground stated therein to be true would in itself tend to show malice. Nordhaus v. Peterson, 54 Iowa 68, 6 N.W. 77; Hurlbut v. Hardenbrook, 85 Iowa 606, 52 N.W. 510; Wright v. Waddell, 89 Iowa 350, 56 N.W. 650. malice is not to be inferred from the mere finding that nothing was due the p......