Wedgewood v. Parr

• Decision Date: 21 December 1900
• Citation: 84 N.W. 528,112 Iowa 514
• Parties: A. WEDGEWOOD & COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE PARR
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

84 N.W. 528

112 Iowa 514

A. WEDGEWOOD & COMPANY, Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE PARR

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 21, 1900

Appeal from Buena Vista District Court.--HON. F. H. HELSELL, Judge.

THIS action was commenced before C. F. Aiken, a justice of the peace, on the sixth day of December, 1898. The petition shows that recovery is sought on a promissory note for $ 128.50 with interest from March 20, 1898. The petition further shows that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of 700 bushels of wheat, of the value of $ 280, which wheat is wrongfully detained by defendant, and a writ of replevin is asked, and was issued, and the wheat taken possession of by the sheriff, and by him sold. The following, with certain omissions, deemed unimportant, is a part of the transcript of the justice: "Now, on this sixth day of December, 1898 said plaintiff claims of defendant one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and interest, being amount due on their note, and also ask for the immediate possession of 700 bushels of wheat, and filed their petition for same, and also file replevin bond; and now on this sixth day of December 1898, I issued said replevin. * * * And now, on this 20th day of December, 1898, at the hour of 11 o'clock a. m., at my office in said township, said cause is by me called for hearing, as Sheriff E. L. O'Bannon pays into court $ 152.49, and says that he is told to pay this into court by Jas. De Land, and that it be turned over to A. Wedgewood, the plaintiff, or so much thereof as will satisfy his claim in full; and the court finds that there was due the plaintiff $ 147.05, and which amount is paid to the plaintiff. This is therefore settled in full by payment of debt." The transcript then shows that the venue of the action was changed, on motion of defendant, to Justice L. E. Yerington before whom the defendant presented a motion, on which there was no ruling, which was followed by a motion by plaintiff to dismiss the proceedings for two reasons--First, that the transcript of Justice Aiken affirmatively showed that the cause was finally settled; and, second, that Justice Yerington had no jurisdiction to entertain the cause; and the court sustained the motion on the latter ground, and gave judgment against defendant for costs. Defendant then took the case, by writ of error, to the district court, in which it was found that Justice Aiken erred in assuming jurisdiction of the replevin action, and that his action therein was void and of no force, and remanded the cause to Justice Yerrington with instructions to return the same to Justice Aiken, who was directed to dismiss as to the replevin action. The plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

A. D. Bailie for appellant.

James De Land and F. J. Parr for appellee.

OPINION

GRANGER, C. J.

It will be noticed that the district court in its orders confined itself to the replevin part of the action, and we assume the reason to be that the claim, based on the note, was paid, and the...