Schellhorn v. Williams
Decision Date | 05 May 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 48241,48241 |
Citation | 244 Iowa 908,58 N.W.2d 361 |
Parties | SCHELLHORN v. WILLIAMS et al. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Armstrong & McNabb, of Waterloo, for appellant.
Reed & Beers; Harris, Van Metre & Buckmaster, of Waterloo, for appellees.
The incident which is the basis of plaintiff's suit occurred on May 5, 1950. His original action was brought against Ward S. Williams, Incorporated and Faye D. Martin, now Mrs. Faye D. Anderson, as defendants. Service of the original notice was obtained on Ward S. Williams, Incorporated, on April 14, 1952 by serving Mrs. Ward S. Williams. The return stated the last named party was the owner of the corporation. Personal service on the other defendant was obtained on April 30, 1952. Since, and apparently even before, May 5, 1950 there has been a business conducted in the City of Waterloo, Iowa, operating under the style and firm name of Ward S. Williams. Prior to the commencement of the suit there had not been filed in the recorder's office of Black Hawk County any trade name affidavit relative to any business operated as Ward Williams or Ward S. Williams. Section 547.1, 1950 Code, I.C.A. The records do show, however, that heretofore there was a corporation entitled Ward S. Williams, Incorporated and its articles provide that it was to continue until 1953 or until formally dissolved. There is no record of its formal dissolution in Black Hawk County, Iowa. It is also shown that Ward S. Williams died on November 10, 1945 and his estate was probated in Black Hawk County, Iowa. On May 5, 1952 a general appearence for Ward S. Williams, Incorporated and Faye D. Martin, now Mrs. Faye D. Anderson, was filed in the original action. The record discloses the last named defendant is the owner of the real estate where the Williams business was carried on. On May 6, 1952 a special appearance was filed in this case by another attorney on behalf of Ward S. Williams, Incorporated. On May 7, 1952 the original attorney withdrew his general appearance for both defendants and on the same date filed another general appearance for only one of the defendants, namely, Faye D. Anderson. On the hearing on the special appearance certain evidence was presented by stipulation and a certificate of formal dissolution of Ward S. Williams, Incorporated, from the Secretary of State's office was submitted to the court without objection. It showed that Ward S. Williams, Incorporated, was dissolved May 17, 1938. Testimony of the attorney relative to his appearance for the original defendants was also presented. He testified he had no authority to appear for Ward S. Williams, Incorporated, had no intention of so appearing, and the appearance so made was by reason of an inadvertent error made by his secretary. On May 12, 1952 the trial court sustained the special appearance of Ward S. Williams, Incorporated.
Thereafter on May 21, 1952 a trade name affidavit was filed listing Elizabeth B. Williams and Elizabeth W. Driver as partners doing business under the trade name of Ward S. Williams. On May 23, 1952 an amended and substituted petition was filed in the district court in the original action substituting Elizabeth B. Williams and Elizabeth W. Driver d/b/a Ward S. Williams as party defendants instead of Ward S. Williams, Incorporated. Following the filing of this amended and substituted petition new original notices were served on the two substituted defendants. The sheriff's return states that Elizabeth B. Williams is also known as Mrs. Ward S. Williams. On May 29, 1952 a general appearance was thereafter filed for these defendants. A motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition on the ground the statute of limitations had run was filed on behalf of the new and substituted defendants. It was stipulated that prior to May 21, 1952 no affidavit of a trade name had been filed in the office of the recorder of Black Hawk County, Iowa, relative to Ward Williams or Ward S. Williams. On July 21, 1952 the court sustained the motion to dismiss the action against Elizabeth B. Williams and Elizabeth W. Driver d/b/a Ward S. Williams. Plaintiff has appealed.
I. The stipulation and other matters shown by the record disclose that there was a business conducted in Waterloo, Iowa, as Ward S. Williams at and following the time when the plaintiff's action was commenced. However, it should be kept in mind his action was brought against Ward S. Williams, Incorporated. It is definitely shown by the record that at the time plaintiff's action was brought there was no corporation in existence known as Ward S. Williams, Incorporated. There is definite evidence the original attorney had no authority to appear for and represent Ward S. Williams, Incorporated. In Kirby v. Holman, 238 Iowa 355, 372, 25 N.W.2d 664, 673, we stated:
In * * *'the instant case there is uncontroverted evidence there was no authority for the appearance made.
In so far as it may be pertinent to this case we hold the trial court was correct in sustaining the special appearance of Ward S. Williams, Incorporated.
II. The primary question presented on this appeal appears to us to relate to the question whether the statute of limitations has run in so far as it concerns the substituted defendants, Elizabeth B. Williams and Elizabeth W. Driver. The statute pertaining to the limitation of actions as it relates to this case provides that an action for injuries to a person must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues. Section 614.1(3), 1950 Code, I.C.A.
'* * * whether amendment of process or pleading, or both will be allowed which changes the description or characterization of a party after the statute of limitations has run, from a corporation to an individual, copartnership, or other association * * * seems to depend upon whether the misdescription or mischaracterization is interpreted as merely a misnomer or defect in the description or characterization, or whether it is deemed a substitution or entire change of parties; in the former case an amendment will be held to relate back to the commencement of the action, while in the latter the amendment will be held to amount to institution of a new action.
8 A.L.R.2d 166, Sec. 81. This statement of the annotator relative to the applicable rules is supported in the following cases:
In Davis, v. L. L. Cohen & Co., Inc., 268 U.S. 638, 45 S.Ct. 633, 634, 69 L.Ed. 1129, it is disclosed that an action was brought by Cohen & Co. against the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company for damages claimed to have occurred when the railroad was under federal control. It was therein stated:
In the Davis v. Cohen case the Supreme Court of the United States held that under an applicable federal statute new parties could not be substituted after two years--a limitation period.
In Sanders v. Metzger, D.C., 66 F.Supp. 262, 263, it is disclosed an action originally was commenced against 'Eli Metzger, trading as or manager of Morris Management Company * * *.' Later plaintiff sought to amend the record by substituting 'Morris Management Company, a corporation'. It was therein stated:
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Baule
...and quoting 8 A.L.R.2d, section 81, page 166 and a rather thorough analysis of the prime authorities we state in Shellhorn v. Williams, 244 Iowa 908, 918, 58 N.W.2d 361, 367: "In the case before us for review entirely new parties were substituted. There was no misnomer or defect in the desc......
-
DeWall v. Prentice
...128.' See also Mizer v. State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters, 195 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Iowa 1972). Then in Shellhorn v. Williams, 244 Iowa 908, 918--919, 58 N.W.2d 361 (1953), we approvingly quoted this from Linger v. Harlan Fuel Co., 298 Ky. 216, 182 S.W.2d 657, "(O)ne may not omit to avai......
-
Maslov v. Manning
...138 Cal.App.2d 387, 291 P.2d 995; Daiprai v. Moberly Fuel and Transfer Co., 1949, 359 Mo. 789, 233 S.W.2d 474; Schellhorn v. Williams, 1953, 244 Iowa 908, 58 N.W.2d 361; and Eskon v. Four Star Realty Co., 1961, 71 N.J.S.uper. 202, 176 A.2d 538. This result has been reached notwithstanding t......
-
Guardianship and Conservatorship of Cerven, Matter of, 2-67818
...to act with authority." Id. at 790. The presumption of an attorney's authority is not conclusive and may be rebutted. Shellhorn v. Williams, 244 Iowa 908, 58 N.W.2d 361. If an attorney in fact has no authority to consent to judgment, the judgment must be vacated. Ohlquest v. Farwell, 71 Iow......