Moffitt v. Albert

• Decision Date: 05 February 1896
• Citation: 97 Iowa 213,66 N.W. 162
• Parties: MOFFITT ET AL. v. ALBERT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

97 Iowa 213

66 N.W. 162

MOFFITT ET AL.

v.ALBERT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 5, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Cedar county; William G. Thompson, Judge.

Action at law, aided by a landlord's attachment, to recover an amount due as rent under a lease of real estate. A petition of intervention was filed, there was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. The interveners appeal. Affirmed.Wright & Wright and Charles W. Kepler, for appellants.

Preston, Wheeler & Moffit, for appellees.

ROBINSON, J.

In August, 1889, the plaintiffs leased to the defendant Henry Albert, Sr., certain real estate, for the term of five years from the 1st day of March, 1890, at an annual rent of $1,278. This action was brought to recover rent due under the lease. The jury found that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $430.79, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for that amount, and for the sale of the attached property. The defendant did not except to the judgment, and does not appear to be interested in this appeal. The interveners are Henry Albert, Jr., and August Albert, sons of the defendant. They claim to be the absolute and unqualified owners of certain horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, and other personal property, upon which the writ of attachment was levied; that the defendant never owned the property so claimed, nor any part of it, and that it was not subject to the attachment for the payment of the amount due from the defendant. The evidence is not before us, but a stipulation of the partiesshows that some of the evidence offered tended to show that the property in question belonged to the defendant, some of the evidence tended to show that the property belonged to the interveners, and some tended to show that it belonged to the defendant and the interveners. The verdict of the jury on the claim of the interveners was as follows: “We, the jury, find against the interveners, Henry Albert and August Albert, that they are not the owners of the attached property.” A special interrogatory was submitted to the jury, and answered, as follows: “Who were the owners of the property described in the sheriff's return, and which was levied upon by the sheriff in this action at the time of said levy? Answer. Henry Albert, Sen., and sons.” The interveners filed motions in arrest of judgment, and to set aside the verdict, which were overruled.

1. The motion in arrest of judgment is based upon two grounds, which present different questions, and the motion to set aside the verdict is on more than two grounds, and involves several questions. The first assignment of errors alleges that the court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. The second assignment refers, in substantially the same terms, to the ruling on the motion to set aside the verdict. Neither of these assignments is sufficiently specific to present any question for our determination. Blocker v. Schoff, 83 Iowa, 266, 48 N. W. 1079;State v. Harbach, 78 Iowa, 476, 43 N. W. 272;Duncombe v. Powers, 75 Iowa, 187, 39 N. W. 261;Armstrong v. Killen, 70 Iowa, 52, 30 N. W. 14.

2. It is said that the special finding is inconsistent with the general verdict. If that be conceded, it does not follow that the motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. Such a motion lies, after trial, when the facts stated in the petition do not entitle the plaintiff to any relief whatever. Code, § 2650. But it is not claimed that the petition of the plaintiffs...