TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robinson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co.

Robinson v. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R'y Co

Robinson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R'y Co., 35 N.W. 602 (Iowa 1887)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 16, 1887
Judges
Adams, Reed
Citations
35 N.W. 60273 Iowa 506
Cited by 9
Headnotes
1. Continuance: granted without good cause: costs. Where u party asks and procures an order for a continuance upon an insufficient showing, and the order is accompanied with an order for the costs to be taxed to him, he cannot accept of the continuance, and afterwards complain of the order as to the costs. [Reed, J., dissenting.]
Summary
Appeal from Appanoose Circuit Court. Action for a personal inj ury to the plaintiff’s intestate. The plaintiff, at the term at which the case should have been tried, amended his petition. Thereupon the defendant applied for a continuance on the ground that, after the issue had been changed by the amendment, it was not prepared to go to trial. The court granted the continuance, but ordered that the costs be taxed to the defendant. From this order in respect to costs the defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Adams

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Adams, Oh. J.

We do not think that the issue was so changed as to call for evidence different from that apparently called for under the original issue. It appears to us, there *507 fore, that the continuance was unnecessary. The defendant then might have protected itself by waiving the order for a continuance, after seeing that it was accompanied by the order for the payment of costs. After accepting the unnecessary order for a continuance, accompanied by the order for the payment of costs, we do not think that it should be heard to complain of the latter order. Affirmed.

Reed, J., dissenting.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1893: 21894: 11896: 11907: 11909: 11910: 11912: 11915: 118932026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Des Moines City Railway Co. v. City of Des Moines26 L.R.A. 767 (Iowa 1894)
  2. Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines151 F. 854 (1907)
  3. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. City of South Bend89 N.E. 885 (Ind. 1909)
  4. Keller v. Harrison151 Iowa 320 (1910) · Dissent
  5. Iowa Telephone Co. v. City of Keokuk226 F. 82 (S.D. Iowa 1915)
  6. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co.56 F. 867 (1893)

Most recent

  1. Iowa Telephone Co. v. City of Keokuk226 F. 82 (S.D. Iowa 1915)
  2. Ford v. Simmons52 Colo. 249 (1912)
  3. Keller v. Harrison151 Iowa 320 (1910) · Dissent
  4. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. City of South Bend89 N.E. 885 (Ind. 1909)
  5. Des Moines City Ry. Co. v. City of Des Moines151 F. 854 (1907)
  6. Levis v. City of Newton75 F. 884 (1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list