Marks v. Shinrone, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 55778,55778 |
| Parties | Fred MARKS, Appellee, v. SHINRONE, INC., a corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Gleysteen, Nelson, Harper, Kunze & Eidsmore, Sioux City, for appellant.
O'Brien, Galvin & O'Brien, Sioux City, for appellee.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON, HARRIS and McCORMICK, JJ.
This case reaches us by permissive appeal under the provisions of Rule 332, Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant challenges an order overruling its special appearance. We affirm the trial court.
Defendant asserts the original notice served on it was fatally defective, conferring no jurisdiction on the Sac County district court. Defendant relies on our previous decisions interpreting Rule 50, R.C.P.
Although this litigation was started in Sac County, plaintiff used a printed original notice form prepared for use in Woodbury County. After designating venue as being in the district court in and for Sac County, the notice (eliminating those portions unimportant to this appeal) contained the following:
'You are also hereby notified to appear before said court at the Woodbury County Courthouse in 'Sac' City, 'Sac' County, Iowa, within 20 days after service of this original notice upon you, and that unless you appear, your default will be entered and judgment or decree will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the petition.'
The problem presented arises because the printed form was imperfectly altered to direct defendant's appearance at the Woodbury County Courthouse instead of the Sac County Courthouse. This is the only matter about which defendant complains. Did this render the original notice fatally defective? We answer in the negative, and we affirm the trial court.
We have frequently said compliance with Rule 50 is mandatory and jurisdictional. McArtor v. Pete's Cafe, 175 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Iowa 1970); White v. O'Neill, 164 N.W.2d 79, 80 (Iowa 1969); Gordon v. Doden, 261 Iowa 285, 287, 154 N.W.2d 146, 147 (1967); Bice v. Incorporated City of Urbandale, 258 Iowa 1013, 1015, 141 N.W.2d 639, 640 (1966); Parkhurst v. White, 254 Iowa 477, 480, 118 N.W.2d 47, 49 (1962).
Our holdings have been criticized as hypertechnical. See Comment, 55 Iowa L.Rev. 1049 (1970). On the other hand, as we have pointed out in some of these decisions, rules have a legitimate and important part to play in the administration of justice. Parties have a right to know the conditions under which they may be sued and the terms under which they must submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the settlement of disputes. Gordon v. Doden, supra, 261 Iowa at 288, 154 N.W.2d at 148.
It is not necessary to renew this philosophical dispute under the record now before us since we hold this appeal may be resolved without conflict with our previous interpretations of Rule 50.
The material part of that rule is as follows:
* * *'
Our decisions invalidating original notices because of failure to comply with Rule 50 have all been premised on a failure to include in the notice correct information on matters which Rule 50 makes mandatory. That situation does not confront us here. This notice accurately sets out each item of information demanded by the Rule. It is directed to the defendant and is signed by plaintiff's attorney, whose address is given. It names the plaintiff and designates the court in which the action is brought as well as the city and county where that court convenes....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Adair County
...may be entered only against persons who have been both properly named as parties to the suit and properly served. Marks v. Shinrone, Inc., 220 N.W.2d 889, 890 (Iowa 1974); Iowa R.Civ.P. 49, 50; 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 191, at 328 (1947). Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 230 pertinently A party sh......
-
West v. Hawker
...did not mislead or deceive defendants cannot be relied upon as demonstrating a failure of substantial compliance. Marks v. Shinrone, Inc., 220 N.W.2d 889, 890--891 (Iowa 1974), Parkhurst v. White, 254 Iowa 477, 481--482, 118 N.W.2d 47, 49--50 In this case, plaintiff did exactly what the met......
-
Boye v. Mellerup
...established that the provisions of rule 50 are mandatory and that the rule has statutory status. * * *." See also Marks v. Shinrone, Inc., 220 N.W.2d 889, 890 (Iowa 1974). But as above noted, plaintiff here effected a timely amendment of his petition thereby identifying defendant as William......
-
Holmes v. Polk City Sav. Bank
...(1962). See also Gray v. Steele, 264 N.W.2d 752, 753 (Iowa 1978); West v. Hawker, 237 N.W.2d 802, 805 (Iowa 1976); Marks v. Shinrone, Inc., 220 N.W.2d 889, 890-891 (Iowa 1974); and Halverson v. Hageman, 249 Iowa 1381, 1386-1387, 92 N.W.2d 569, 573 (1958). We recognize that even our more lib......