O' Conner v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
This text of 34 N.W. 795 (O' Conner v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.) 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.
Opinion
— The original count set out separate acts of the defendant, upon each of which, upon the plaintiff’s theory, he was entitled to recover, even if he failed to recover for the other acts. The acts were set out, therefore, as separate causes of action, and the court did not, we think, err in sustaining the motion to divide. This motion it was the duty of the court to enforce. When, therefore, the plaintiff filed a substitute, without attempting to comply with the order to divide, the court, we think,. properly struck out the substitute. This was necessary by way of enforcement of its order to divide.
Aeeiemed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
34 N.W. 795, 75 Iowa 617, 1888 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/o-conner-v-chicago-rock-island-pacific-railway-co-iowa-1887.