Payne v. Knapp
| Decision Date | 28 September 1923 |
| Docket Number | No 34268.,34268. |
| Citation | 195 N.W. 1 |
| Parties | PAYNE, AGENT, ET AL. v. KNAPP. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Appanoose County; D. M. Anderson, Judge.
Suit in equity to enjoin the defendant Knapp from prosecuting a personal injury suit in the courts of Missouri upon a cause of action which accrued in Iowa. There was a decree denying the relief asked, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Hughes, Taylor & O'Brien, of Des Moines, and Wilson & Smith of Centerville, for appellants.
Howell, Elgin & Howell, of Centerville, and Hubbell Bros., of Trenton, Mo., for appellee.
The petition alleges that defendant, Knapp, a citizen and resident of Iowa, acting by his attorneys, Hubbell Bros., of Trenton, Mo. had brought suit in the circuit court of Grundy county, Mo., to recover damages for alleged injuries sustained by him in Iowa while in the service of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. It is further alleged that such proceeding is irregular and contrary to chapter 293 of the Laws of the 37th General Assembly of Iowa, and that such action in Missouri was oppressively brought in said foreign state for the purpose of obtaining an undue and unfair advantage over said company and over the Agent or Director General of railroads appointed thereto by the President of the United States, and because thereof an injunction is prayed restraining the maintenance of such action elsewhere than in the jurisdiction of courts of Iowa.
The answer made to this claim is in the nature of a general denial. On trial to the court, the evidence tended to show, without material dispute, that at the time of his injury Knapp was and still is a resident and citizen of Appanoose county, Iowa; that on January 13, 1919, and while in the service of said railway company at the town of Rathbun in said county, he received a severe injury in the course of his employment, and thereafter, on December 23, 1920, by his attorneys Hubbell Bros., brought an action in the Missouri court to recover damages. On January 27, 1921, the present suit to enjoin such proceeding was begun in the district court of Appanoose county, Iowa, resulting, as we have seen, in a denial of the relief asked. From this ruling appeal has been taken by the Director General of Railroads. The petition for an injunction alleges as grounds therefor: First, that the bringing of the action for damages in the Missouri court is contrary to the Iowa statute, chapter 293 of the Acts of the 37th General Assembly; and second, that said action for recovery of damages was brought in the foreign jurisdiction oppressively and to acquire an undue and unfair advantage over the defendant therein.
[1] I. The allegation of facts relied upon as showing a violation of the statute referred to is that Hubbell Bros., attorneys for the appellee, Knapp, residing in Trenton, Mo., solicited such appointment or employment by said Knapp for the purpose of instituting a suit outside of Iowa for the recovery of damages. A reading of this statute discloses no provision which assumes to define or limit the jurisdiction of the courts, whether foreign or domestic, to entertain and try actions for the recovery of such damages. What it does provide is a prohibition of the practice of “ambulance chasing”--the soliciting of such business or employment for the purpose of instituting suit thereon outside of the state to recover damages for personal injuries sustained within the state. In other words, the jurisdiction of courts, whether domestic or foreign, is neither enlarged nor restricted by the act of the 37th General Assembly. The issue presented by the pleadings in this respect is, however, of little moment upon this appeal, in that the charge made in the petition, that said action in the Missouri court for recovery of damages was brought about by the unlawful solicitation of Hubbell Bros., has no support in the record, and may therefore be here wholly disregarded.
[2] II. As a general proposition a transitory action may be brought and maintained in any court, foreign or domestic, having jurisdiction of the persons and subject-matter. It is, however, a well-established rule of ancient origin that this general right or privilege is subject to equitable supervision, and in a clear case of its abuse may be controlled by injunction.
[3] In the absence of such abuse the right of a plaintiff to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v. Knapp
...a cause of action accruing in Iowa. From a decree denying the relief asked, the plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. Superseding former opinion in 195 N. W. 1.Hughes, Taylor & O'Brien, of Des Moines, and Wilson & Smith, of Centerville, for appellants.Howell, Elgin & Howell, of Centerville, and Hubb......
-
Hovel v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.
...urged that our courts should decline to try this action, thereby giving effect to the public policy of a sister state. In Payne v. Knapp, 195 N. W. 1, this was said of the "What it does provide is a prohibition of the practice of `ambulance chasing' — the soliciting of such business or empl......
-
Hovel. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company
...urged that our courts should decline to try this action, thereby giving effect to the public policy of a sister state. In Payne v. Knapp (Iowa), 195 N.W. 1, this was said of statute: "What it does provide is a prohibition of the practice of 'ambulance chasing' -- the soliciting of such busi......