Webster v. Page

• Decision Date: 06 October 1880
• Citation: 6 N.W. 716,54 Iowa 461
• Parties: WEBSTER v. PAGE ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

6 N.W. 716

54 Iowa 461

WEBSTER v. PAGE ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 6, 1880

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court.

A JUDGMENT was rendered against plaintiff and others in an action to recover for an injury to the personal property of plaintiff in that action by the negligent acts of defendants. This proceeding is to obtain a new trial in that action. An injunction was allowed herein to restrain the enforcement of the judgment against plaintiff, which, upon motion, was dissolved. Plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

J. M Parker and Brown & Binford, for appellant.

Henderson Merriman & Carney, for appellees.

OPINION

BECK J.

I.

The plaintiff seeks to vacate the judgment rendered against him, and to obtain a new trial, under paragraphs 5 and 8 of Code, § 3154, which authorize a judgment to be vacated on the ground that the proceedings were erroneous, and the errors and his minority do not appear in the proceedings, and for errors generally, in a judgment against a minor, if shown within twelve months after he arrives at full age.

II. The plaintiff insists that the court below erroneously sustained the motion for reason that plaintiff did not appear in the original action by guardian. This position is not sustained by the record. A guardian ad litem was appointed and did appear for plaintiff. It is true that the appointment was made during the trial, and after answer by attorney. The attorney was appointed guardian ad litem, and continued to act for plaintiff thereafter. In the absence of prejudice resulting to plaintiff, and none is shown, this was sufficient and plaintiff cannot object on that ground to the judgment. Wickersham v. Timmons, 49 Iowa 267.

III. The petition alleges that plaintiff's guardian at law was, during the trial, sick and unable to make defense for him. But it does not appear that this matter was brought to the attention of the court. There was, and could have been, no error committed in reference thereto. The court in this proceeding is not authorized to grant a new trial on the ground of misfortune or casualty.

IV. It is insisted that there was error in that the evidence, upon several questions of fact, does not sufficiently support the judgment. The errors which may be considered in this proceeding, and which will authorize the court to vacate the judgment, are such as would be a ground of reversal upon appeal. Bickel v. Erskine, 43 Iowa 213.

The...