Sigler v. Condon
| Decision Date | 20 March 1886 |
| Citation | 27 N.W. 372,68 Iowa 441 |
| Parties | SIGLER v. CONDON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Polk circuit court.
Action commenced on the twenty-third day of September, 1884, to recover rent reserved in a lease of real estate. In January, 1885, the plaintiff filed a supplemental petition, stating in substance that, since filing the petition, another month's rent had become due, and judgment was asked therefor. On motion of the defendant, the supplemental petition was stricken from the files, and the plaintiff appeals.Nathaniel T. Guernsey, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The amount in controversy being less than $100, we are required to answer a question propounded by the circuit court in these words: “Where a lease has been made which provides for the payment of rent, in six monthly installments, payable on the first day of each month, from May, 1884, to October, 1884, inclusive, and the lessee fails to pay the installment becoming due on the first day of September, 1884, and thereupon, and during the said month of September, suit is commenced upon the said lease for rent, and asks a landlord's attachment for rent due September 1st, and that to be due October 1st, and the petition set out the execution of the lease and its terms, possession thereunder by the lessee, and his failure to pay the September rent hereinbefore referred to, and asks judgment for the amount of this said September installment of rent, and also for the amount of the one next to become due, to-wit, the October installment, which latter was the last one to become due under said lease, and a landlord's attachment is issued for rent due, as well as that to become due, and subsequently, and after the first day of October, 1884, the plaintiff, by way of supplemental petition, in accordance with section 2731 of the Code, set up the fact that since the filing of the former pleading, this last installment of rent had become due, and that no part thereof had ever been paid, and then prayed judgment therefor,--was it error on the part of the court to strike the supplemental petition from the files?”
It will be observed that the action was brought on the lease, and judgment asked in the petition for the rent due and to become due. A landlord's attachment was obtained for the rent not due. It is apparent the defendant was advised by the petition that the plaintiff claimed he was entitled to recover for rent not due, and of the grounds upon which...
To continue reading
Request your trial