Walters v. Wood

• Decision Date: 12 June 1883
• Citation: 16 N.W. 116,61 Iowa 290
• Parties: WALTERS v. WOOD. CRABTREE v. WOOD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

61 Iowa 290

16 N.W. 116

WALTERS

v.WOOD.

CRABTREE

v.WOOD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 12, 1883.

Appeal from Marshall district court.

The defendant, Wood, one Jackson, and the plaintiff executed a promissory note to D. N. Pickering, and the plaintiffs claim the defendant was the principal debtor and they his sureties, and they have been compelled to pay Pickering a portion of the amount due on the note, and this action was brought to recover the amount so paid. The defendant pleaded a prior adjudication. Trial to the court and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant appeals.Brown & Carney, for appellant.

Binford & Snelling and O. L. Binford, for appellees.

SEEVERS, J.

The appellant moves the court to strike the additional abstract from the files. We do not think the motion should be sustained, but deem it unnecessary to state the reason for this holding, because, for the purposes of the case, such abstract will be disregarded. The note to Pickering was signed by the makers in the following order: Wood, Jackson, Crabtree, Walters. The note, on its face, failed to indicate who were principals and who sureties. Pickering brought suit against all the makers, we presume, but the record shows he only recovered judgment against the plaintiffs and defendant. If Jackson was a party to the action, for some reason unknown to us Pickering failed to obtain judgment against him. In that action the plaintiffs pleaded “that they signed” the note “as security for N. W. Wood,” and the latter pleaded that he “was surety only and not liable as principal on the note.” To such pleadings no reply was filed by Pickering. The court found that the plaintiffs and defendant were all sureties, and judgment was rendered against them as such. The court calendar shows the judgment was entered “under the rule by agreement. Clerk assess.” It is this judgment which is pleaded and relied on as a prior adjudication, and counsel for the appellant concede that if this is not a valid defense none exists.

The material question in the case, in our judgment, is whether any issue was joined between the defendants, in the Pickering action, which could be tried and determined. As between Pickering and the defendants in that action it may be conceded the court could and did properly determine that both the plaintiff and defendants were sureties. In actions at law issues cannot be formed and tried between defendants therein unless there is some statute which authorizes it....