Stubbs v. Clarinda, College Springs & Southwestern Railway Co.

17 N.W. 530, 62 Iowa 280
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided December 8, 1883·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Day, Ch. J.

There is one defect in the petition which is .fatal to it, and which obviates the necessity of considering the other objections urged. The petition does not state that anything is due the plaintiff from his immediate employers, Jesse Stubbs & Co. It is true, the statement for a lien, which is attached to the petition as an exhibit, alleges that there is due the plaintiff $547.37. But this statement for a lien was filed on the first day of April. This action was not commenced until the first day of September following. This statement in the claim for a lien cannot have the effect of an averment that there was something due when the action was commenced. "Without an averment that there was something due from Jesse Stubbs & Co. to the plaintiff, it is clear that the petition does not state facts entitling the plaintiff to any relief. See Roberts v. Campbell, 59 Iowa, 675. The demurrer to- the petition was properly sustained.

Affirmed.

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

Stubbs v. Clarinda, College Springs & Southwestern Railway Co., 17 N.W. 530, 62 Iowa 280 (iowa 1883).

17 N.W. 530 (Stubbs v. Clarinda, College Springs & Southwestern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marsh v. Mick
159 Ill. App. 399 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1911)