Worrall v. Des Moines Retail Grocers' Ass'n

• Decision Date: 19 November 1912
• Citation: 138 N.W. 481,157 Iowa 385
• Parties: WORRALL v. DES MOINES RETAIL GROCERS' ASS'N.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

157 Iowa 385

138 N.W. 481

WORRALL

v.DES MOINES RETAIL GROCERS' ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 19, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Hugh Brennan, Judge.

Suit to recover damages for the wrongful levy of an execution on exempt personal property. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. Reversed.

Weaver, J., dissenting in part.

Graham & Graham, of Des Moines, for appellant.

J. L. Witmer, of Des Moines, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

The defendant had a judgment against the plaintiff and her divorced husband, and caused the issuance of an execution and a levy thereunder on household goods in the possession of the plaintiff. Shortly after the levy made by the defendant, Chase & Co., of Des Moines, caused a second levy on the same goods; process in both of these cases having issued from the same justice court in Des Moines. After both levies had been made, the plaintiff herein, Mrs. Worrall, served notice that she claimed all of said property as exempt to her. This was denied by both the defendant and Chase & Co. Issue was joined on the question of exemption before F. A. Cope, the justice of the peace, before whom the case was pending. A trial was had on the merits, and it was found that the goods levied on were not exempt to Mrs. Worrall. No appeal was ever taken from said judgment. The trial on the question of exemption was completed September 18, 1908, and the justice took the matter under advisement and continued the case until September 21, 1908. On the 21st of September, the case was again continued for a period of three days, and judgment was finally entered by the justice on the 24th day of September. Thereafter the plaintiff herein, Mrs. Worrall, brought an action in equity against Chase & Co., asking that they be restrained from enforcing their judgment against her. The case finally reached this court, and we held therein that the judgment obtained by Chase & Co. against Mrs. Worrall was void for want of jurisdiction in the justice to render it six days after the cause had been submitted to him for final action. Worrall v. Chase & Co., 144 Iowa, 665, 123 N. W. 338.

[1] In the case now before us, the defendant pleaded former adjudication as to the question of exemption, relying upon the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace in the proceedings to which we have already referred. There was evidence tending to show that the continuance of the case before the justice from the 21st to the 24th of September was by mutual consent, and the defendant asked an instruction to the effect that if such continuance was agreed upon by Mrs. Worrall and this defendant, and that judgment was on said day rendered against the claim of Mrs. Worrall, it would constitute an adjudication of the exemption rights of Mrs. Worrall. This instruction was refused, and the court did not instruct on the question of a previous adjudication. This instruction, or a similar one, should have been given. The issue of former adjudication was before the court, and there was evidence tending to show that there had been an adjudication, so far as this defendant is concerned, in the trial before the justice.

[2] The judgment of a justice of the peace is as conclusive on the parties as is the judgment of any other court. Central Iowa Ry. Co. v. Piersol, 65 Iowa, 498, 22 N. W. 648.

[3] And a judgment of a court of jurisdiction is conclusive as to all points and questions adjudicated. Beh v. Bay, 127 Iowa, 246, 103 N. W. 119, 109 Am. St. Rep. 385;Reynolds v. Lyon County, 121 Iowa, 733, 96 N. W. 1096.

[4] We entertain no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the justice to render judgment on the 24th day of September, if, as a matter of fact, the parties to the action consented to a...