Wilson v. Klokenteger

• Decision Date: 18 June 1881
• Citation: 9 N.W. 346,56 Iowa 764
• Parties: WILSON v. KLOKENTEGER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

56 Iowa 764

9 N.W. 346

WILSON

v.KLOKENTEGER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 18, 1881.

Appeal from superior court of Cedar Rapids.

Action upon a promissory note. There was a verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.George W. Wilson and J. T. Rice, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

BECK, J.

The assignment of error is in the following language: “Plaintiff and appellant refers to the errors assigned in the motion for a new trial and as discussed in the argument for her assignment of errors in this case.” The grounds of the motion for a new trial are here designated as “errors assigned,” and only such of these grounds of the motion for a new trial as are discussed in the argument are assigned for errors. Counsel, in their assignment, designate by reference to their argument the errors relied upon. When these are discovered a further reference is required to the grounds of the motion for a new trial before it can be determined what points are really covered by the assignment. The grounds of the motion for a new trial cover objections to rulings permitting amendments to pleadings, to decisions overruling a demurrer, overruling objections to the jury, admitting and excluding evidence, requiring plaintiff to go to trial against his objection, giving and refusing instructions, and also objections to the verdict as being unsupported by the testimony, and other matters. A part only of these objections is urged in argument.

Code, § 3207, provides that “an assignment of error need follow no stated form, but must, in a way as specific as the case will allow, point out the very error objected to.” The assignment of errors in this case clearly fails to comply with the requirement. Instead of pointing out the errors complained of, “in a way as specific as the case will allow,” we think a more indefinite and obscure method could not be pursued. We cannot sanction such a violation of the statute, and give countenance to a practice which excuses an appellant from stating clearly and specifically the very objections upon which he relies for a reversal of the case. The practice in this court, as prescribed by the statute and rules here recognized, is simple and readily understood by all. It requires the direct and plain presentation of all questions brought here for determination. Fairness to the parties and the court, and the correct administration of justice, demand that it be pursued in all cases.

The assignment of...