Bartlett v. Gaines

11 Iowa 95
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedOctober 6, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 11 Iowa 95 (Bartlett v. Gaines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bartlett v. Gaines, 11 Iowa 95 (iowa 1860).

Opinion

Wright, J.

The motion to dissolve the attachment was properly overruled. The causes stated in said motion relate more to the sufficiency of the petition than to the affidavit, which was filed, and which, by the Code, section 1271, is made the basis of the attachment. Thus, it is objected that the petition fails to show upon its face any grounds for an [97]*97attachment.” And again, “that it does not bring the case within the statute authorizing a landlord’s attachment or lien.” Now the landlord may commence his action for his rent and lien without asking an attachment in his petition. If he desires the auxiliary writ, he is to make the affidavit provided for in section 1271, and that this was done in this instance there is no dispute.

Upon the trial, defendant proposed to prove that a large portion of the rent for which the suit was brought, accrued and became due more than one year prior to the commencement of the action. No such issue as this was made by the pleadings. The defendant simply denied the indebtedness, but presented no issue to which this testimony was applicable. There was no error, therefore, in sustaining plaintiff’s objection to the testimony offered, either before or after the verdict.

The jury was sworn to try the issue joined, and no more. When that issue was found in favor of plaintiff it remained with the court to pass upon those admitted. As there was no controversy then, so far as shown by the pleadings, but that plaintiff was entitled to his landlord’s lien, if the indebtedness of defendant was established, it was not error for the court to recognize the lien in the judgment and award a special execution, after the jury had found the indebtedness, without passing either way upon the question of lien. With this question the jury had nothing to do.

Judgment affirmed.,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pickler v. Lanphere
227 N.W. 526 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)
Emeny v. Farmers Elevator Co.
194 Iowa 282 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)
Staber v. Collins
100 N.W. 527 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Youngerman v. Long
63 N.W. 674 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Iowa 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-gaines-iowa-1860.