Reece v. Northway
| Decision Date | 21 April 1882 |
| Citation | 58 Iowa 187,12 N.W. 258 |
| Parties | REECE v. NORTHWAY AND OTHERS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Greene circuit court.
Action upon an injunction bond. There was a trial without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.Russell & Toliver, for appellants.
C. H. Jackson, for appellee.
The condition of the pleadings and the evidence, and the manner in which the case was presented, leave us in great doubt as to what the actual rights of the parties are. The plaintiff claims $100 as damages for attorney's fees, for procuring a dissolution of the injunction, but the petition contains no averment that the services were reasonably worth that amount. He also claims $100 for loss of time and for his trouble, and for money expended other than for attorney's fees, but the petition contains no averment as to the value of his time or amount of money expended. He also claims $1,500 as damages sustained “in loss of the land, and privileges and opportunity to sell said land set out in said writ, and the depreciation of the value thereof,” but it is not averred in the petition that the plaintiff was enjoined from selling any land.
The petition shows that the petition for an injunction prayed that the defendant in that action, the present plaintiff, be enjoined from disposing of any property in his hands belonging to one William B. Allinson, but the petition contains no description of the property. Possibly the petition for an injunction did, but no copy is set out, and we are not permitted to know what it contained. The abstract contains what purports to be a copy of a writ of injunction, and that contains a description of certain land. We conjecture that this is a copy of the writ of injunction in question, but it is not so stated. The petition refers to some writ of injunction, and states that it is “made a part hereof by reference, and duly filed in said court and cause,” but it does not state that a copy is attached to the petition, and no copy appears to have been attached. The petition contains no averment that the plaintiff owned the land described in the writ, or had any interest in it, or any right to sell it; or that the service of the writ interfered with any right which he could properly exercise. The petition contains no averment that the plaintiff lost the land or any privileges therein, or any opportunity to sell the land, or that it depreciated in value.
When we come to the evidence we find that almost equally indefinite and unsatisfactory. The plaintiff was examined as a witness, but he did not testify that he owned the land or had any interest in it. What he said was in these words: The abstract shows a report of a referee introduced in evidence which appears to have been made and filed in an action in which the plaintiff was garnished as a debtor of Allinson. The report contains certain findings of fact. These findings, we infer, the plaintiff regards as evidence of the facts. But we see no evidence that the report was confirmed. The most that we can discover is that on the strength of the report the garnishee was discharged. Now, this report shows that the plaintiff was not only not indebted to Allinson, but that Allinson owed the plaintiff about $895. The report further shows that the plaintiff sold certain personal property belonging to Allinson and took therefor certain land, but what land does not appear. The referee describes the land as being the land described in the petition, but the petition in that action was not introduced in evidence. We conjecture that the land referred to is the 50 acres in Illinois, of which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial