Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 5 of Big Grove Tp. v. Solon

Decision Date09 March 1910
Citation125 N.W. 184,148 Iowa 154
PartiesINDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 5 OF BIG GROVE TP. v. SOLON, IOWA, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 8.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Johnson County; R. P. Howell, Judge.

The opinion states the facts and case. Affirmed.

Holbert & Kimball, for appellant.

Wade, Dutcher & Davis, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover money alleged to have been demanded and paid under a mistake. The original petition was filed August 30, 1907, and in January, 1908, and again in November of the same year, amended and substituted petitions were filed. It does not appear whether the defendant pleaded to the first two petitions. Certain interrogatories for the defendant to answer were annexed to the last substituted petition, as provided by section 3604 of the Code. Still later the plaintiff filed an affidavit in which it attempted to comply with the provisions of section 3610 of the Code. On February 2, 1909, the interrogatories not having been answered, the district court by proper order extended the time for answering the same 10 days. No answer was made within the extended time, and on the 26th of February the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment under section 3610. No ruling was made on this motion at that time, and on March 6th the defendant asked further time within which to answer the interrogatories. A resistance to this motion was filed on the 16th of March. On the 19th of April the court overruled the plaintiff's motion for a judgment, and gave the defendant five days from that time for answering the interrogatories. On the 21st of April the defendant filed answers to the interrogatories, and on the same day the plaintiff appealed from the order overruling its motion for judgment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment on its motion. The petition in its several counts alleged that the plaintiff had paid to the defendant during a period covering several years specific sums for the tuition of school children who were supposed to belong to the plaintiff district when in fact they belonged to the defendant district. The interrogatories asked the defendant to state whether it had a record of the children treated as coming from plaintiff district and for whose instruction it had charged plaintiff, and further, whether during the years in question there were any children belonging to plaintiff district who were furnished tuition by defendant, for which the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT