Rogers v. Martin

• Decision Date: 16 September 1879
• Citation: 51 Iowa 709,2 N.W. 262
• Parties: E. ROGERS, RESPONDENT, v. JAMES MARTIN, APPELLANT.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

51 Iowa 709

2 N.W. 262

E. ROGERS, RESPONDENT,

v.JAMES MARTIN, APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 16, 1879.

Appeal from Lee circuit court.

The plaintiff brought an action in the district court against the defendant and E. J. and P. McMahon, claiming to recover $110 for rent on demised premises. Afterwards the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, before a justice of the peace, in which he claimed to recover twenty-five dollars for rent on the same premises. This action was appealed to the circuit court, and by agreement the action in the district court was transferred to the circuit court, and the two actions consolidated. There was a trial to the court, judgment against the defendant, and he appeals.Sprague & Gibbons, for appellant.

Gibson Browne, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

1. It is objected that this court has no jurisdiction of this cause because the amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, is less than $100, and no certificate, as required by law, has been given by the trial judge.

As we understand, this claim is based on the thought that the appeal was taken only from the action begun before the justice of the peace. But clearly this is unfounded; the judgment appealed from is for $135, and, therefore, must have been rendered in the consolidated action, in which the amount in controversy, as shown by the proceedings, is $135.

2. The issues in the action in the district court were made up in August, 1877. In March, 1878, it was stipulated that the two causes should be consolidated and tried at the ensuing June Term. From some cause not stated the trial did not then take place.

At the following November Term, as we understand, and on the first day thereof, the defendant demanded a trial by jury, “which was refused for the reason, under the rule of court, no jury was demanded at the first term after the cause was docketed.” The said term continued until December 12th, when the trial took place before the court.

It appears by an amended abstract that before the consolidation the judge of the circuit court made an order in his docket, as to the cause pending on appeal, as follows: “By consent of parties this cause is set down for trial by the court at the November Term, 1877.”

The following is the rule of court: “The clerk shall keep a trial docket, upon which shall be entered all causes to be tried before a jury, and this docket shall be made up for each term of court. Causes entered thereon shall stand for trial in the order in which they were...