Tautlinger v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 21 May 1890
• Citation: 80 Iowa 218,45 N.W. 765
• Parties: TAUTLINGER v. SULLIVAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 Iowa 218

45 N.W. 765

TAUTLINGER

v.SULLIVAN.^*

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 21, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; S. H. FAIRALL, Judge.

The plaintiff is the owner of a farm, and the defendant cultivated part of the same in corn and oats in the year 1887, and agreed to deliver to the plaintiff two-fifths of the grain raised. In the month of November of that year the corn was not all gathered, and the defendant turned some cattle on the land, intending to allow them to run upon that part where the corn had been husked, but they escaped, and destroyed some of the crop. The plaintiff turned the cattle off the farm, and the defendant drove them back. This action was commenced to enjoin the defendant from breaking down fences and gates, and driving cattle upon the land to graze and pasture, and from removing corn from the land until the landlord's share was delivered, and from entering upon the land for any purpose after December 1, 1887. A temporary injunction was issued as prayed, which, upon a final hearing, was made perpetual. Defendant appeals.Rank & Wade, for appellant.

Melton Remley, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, C. J.

1. The parties differ as to the terms of the contract upon which the land was farmed. The defendant claims that he had the right to pasture the land after the removal of the crops, and the plaintiff claims there was no such right. It appears to us that it is fully established by the evidence that the defendant occupied the part of the farm which he cultivated as a field tenant or cropper, and that under section 2015 of the Code he had no right to use the land as a pasture after the crop was removed, nor in any event after December 1st. See Kyte v. Keller, 76 Iowa, 34, 39 N. W. Rep. 928. And there was no right of pasturage before the crop was harvested.

2. This is about all that is necessary to be determined in the case. It is true the defendant makes the question that the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction, because it is claimed that it is not shown that the threatened damage would be irreparable, nor that the defendant was insolvent. This was not necessary. The plaintiff was not required to bring an action at law every time his gates were opened or his fences torn down, and cattle turned into his fields. He had the right to an injunction to prevent a multiplicity of suits. Ladd v. Osborne, 44 N. W. Rep. 235.

3. Appellant filed a motion to strike the argument of appellee in reply. It will be...