Reilley v. Kinkead
Decision Date | 16 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 31677 |
Citation | 165 N.W. 80,181 Iowa 615 |
Parties | W. H. REILLEY, Appellee, v. A. L. KINKEAD, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--GEORGE JEPSON, Judge.
FROM a judgment entered by default, and from the court's refusal to set the same aside and permit defendant to answer, he appeals.--Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
T. F Bevington, for appellant.
D. H Sullivan, for appellee.
On March 18, 1916, plaintiff caused original notice to be served upon defendant to the effect that, on or before April 28, 1916, a petition would be filed in the court below demanding a recovery of judgment upon an account for work and labor. The notice was made returnable on the second day of the May, 1916, term of the district court, beginning on the 8th day of that month. The petition was filed April 24, 1916. No appearance being entered or answer filed, the court, Hon. J. W. Anderson, Judge, presiding, entered the defendant's default, and rendered judgment against him on May 24, 1916. On May 25, 1916, defendant appeared by Mr. Bevington, his counsel, and moved to set aside the judgment and default, and for a recall of the execution which had been issued thereon. In the same connection, said counsel offered to pay the costs which had been made in the case, and asked leave to file a verified answer and counterclaim. He also tendered an answer, taking issue on the plaintiff's claim and setting up a counterclaim in an amount equal to or greater than the claim sued upon. The motion was also supported by Mr. Bevington's affidavit, as follows:
To this motion plaintiff objected, on grounds to the effect that the failure of defendant to appear and answer was due to no unavoidable casualty or misfortune, but to the negligence of himself and his counsel.
This motion and resistance were submitted to the court, Judge Anderson presiding, on June 2, 1916. On the same day, Judge Anderson, for some reason, passed the matter of said motion over to Judge George Jepson, also holding court at the same term, who on the same day entered an order overruling it, the order, as we understand it, being entered in the absence of counsel. On the next day, Mr. Bevington recalled the attention of the court, Judge Jepson presiding, to the case, and was proceeding to make a statement of some sort when a colloquy developed between him and the court which excited an apparent display of feeling on both sides. The court finally dictated into the record its version of the circumstances under which the decision of the motion had been passed over to Judge Jepson by Judge Anderson, and announced to counsel that the ruling thereon was set aside, and the matter was open for counsel to be heard. Mr. Bevington, apparently desiring to have the matter heard before another judge, asked for time till Monday morning to counsel with his client, and his request was denied, but the court finally gave him ten minutes in which to present an affidavit for change of forum. The affidavit was filed, setting forth counsel's belief that Judge Jepson was so prejudiced against him that his client could not get a fair and impartial ruling on the motion. The court, denying any feeling of partiality or prejudice in the matter, overruled the motion for a change. This was followed by further statements made of record by Mr. Bevington and by the court, which again overruled the motion to set aside the judgment and default. The defendant appeals.
I. We are not disposed to give much time or attention to the alleged error in refusing a change of forum. The motion seems to have had its impulse in the irritations of the moment growing out of an unfortunate impression on the part of counsel that his motion to set aside the default which had been entered against defendant was not being given the consideration to which it was entitled, and upon the part of the court that counsel was unjustly imputing to it a lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Keating v. Keating
- Keating v. Keating
-
Ryan v. Phoenix Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
......9;. Iowa Cord Tire Co. v. Babbitt, 195 Iowa 922, 192. N.W. 431; State v. Elgin, 11 Iowa 216; Yocum v. Taylor, 179 Iowa 695, 161 N.W. 636; Reilley v. Kinkead, 181 Iowa 615, 165 N.W. 80; Mally v. Roberts, 167 Iowa 523, 149 N.W. 630; Banks v. Taft. Co., 188 Iowa 559, 174 N.W. 576; and cases ......
-
Kulhanek v. Kulhanek
......v. Schroeder, 72 Minn. 393, 75 N. W. 606;Board of Education v. National Bank of Commerce, 4 Kan. App. 438, 46 Pac. 36, and Reilley v. Kinkead, 181 Iowa, 615, 165 N. W. 80. Cases of this character are not authority on the question involved herein. In many of the ......