Sievertsen v. Paxton-Eckman Chem. Co.
Decision Date | 03 July 1913 |
Citation | 160 Iowa 662,142 N.W. 424 |
Parties | SIEVERTSEN v. PAXTON-ECKMAN CHEMICAL CO. ET AL. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Carroll County; Z. A. Church, Judge.
Supplemental opinion. Former opinion adhered to and judgment reversed.
For former opinion, see 133 N. W. 744.
Deemer, J., dissenting.Murdock & Pancoast, of South Omaha, Neb., and Reynolds & Meyers, of Carroll, for appellant.
Douglas Rogers, of Manning, B. I. Salinger and L. H. Salinger, of Carroll, for appellee.
This case was before this court at the December term, 1911, and was reversed. Within the time limit of the statute and the rules of this court, and on the petition of appellee, a rehearing was granted, and it is now again before us for determination. We have read and examined with care the whole record as now before us, and are satisfied that if this court, at that time, had jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, it was then rightly reversed.
The appellee, at the former hearing and now, contends with much learning, ability, and zeal that no jurisdiction rested in this court then, and none rests now, to hear and determine this case, and that this appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the court to either reverse or affirm. The plaintiff predicates this claim on the wording of the statute limiting the right to appeal to six months from the rendition of the judgment. This statute provides: “Appeals from the district court may be taken to the Supreme Court at any time within six months from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from, and not afterwards.”
This case was tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered by the jury in favor of the plaintiff. That thereafter, and as the record shows, within the time fixed by the court, defendant filed a motion for a new trial. In appellant's abstract of record appears the following: ” It further appears below:
It further appears from the abstract of record that on the 14th day of June, 1910, during the same term of court, when judgment was spread upon the records, on the hearing to correct the records in this cause, the following order was entered:
On June 20, 1910, the defendant, Paxton-Eckman Chemical Company, perfected its appeal from the final judgment and rulings in said cause by serving notice upon the attorneys for the plaintiff, and on the First National Bank, of Manning, Iowa, codefendant, and upon John Grelck, clerk of the district court in and for Carroll county, and that said notice of appeal was filed in the office of the clerk of said court on June 20, 1910.
The plaintiff in the denial and amendment to appellant's abstract states: “The judgment appealed from was rendered May 3, 1909, entered on May 6, 1910, and appeal was perfected June 20, 1910.” The plaintiff contends that the record shows, and that the fact is, that the judgment from which this appeal is taken was actually rendered on the 3d day of May, 1909, and more than six months had elapsed from that date before notice of appeal was served, and that therefore no appeal was ever taken from said judgment to this court, as required by law, and that this court, therefore, cannot consider any errors in hearing in said judgment, upon appeal, and that the appeal, if it may be so considered, from the ruling on the motion for a new trial, brings nothing before this court for review, for the reason that all matters complained of in said motion inhere in the so-called judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hahn v. Citizens State Bank
...Elliott's App. Proc., Sec. 118; Puckett v. Gunther, 137 Iowa 647, 114 N.W. 34; Sievertsen v. Chemical Co., 160 Iowa 662, 133 N.W. 744, 142 N.W. 424; Board &c. v. Pabst, 64 Wis. 244, 25 N.W. Edwards v. Evans, 61 Ill. 492; Gilpatrick v. Glidden, 82 Me. 201, 19 A. 166; Fauber v. Keim, 84 Neb. ......
-
Geddes v. Davis
... ... the verdict without any formal action of the court. ( ... Sievertsen v. Paxton-Eckman Chemical Co., 160 Iowa ... 662, 142 N.W. 424.) ... The ... trial court ... ...
-
Des Moines Sav. Bank v. Arthur
...the announcement of the decision, service of the notice of appeal was in time. Martin v. Martin, 125 Iowa, 73, 99 N. W. 719;Sievertson v. Paxton-Eckman, 142 N. W. 424. The record does not bear out the suggestion that there was delay in the final entry because of the trials of issues raised ......
-
Des Moines Savings Bank v. Arthur
... ... Martin v. Martin, 125 Iowa 73, 99 N.W. 719; ... Sievertsen v. Paxton-Eckman, 160 Iowa 662, 133 N.W ... 744. The record does not bear out the suggestion that ... ...