TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baxter, Reed & Co. v. C. W. Rollins & Co.

Baxter, Reed & Co. v. C. W. Rollins & Co., Alice Schleiter and Ressa Schleiter

Baxter, Reed & Co. v. C. W. Rollins & Co., 110 Iowa 310 (1900)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1900
Judges
Given, Granger
Citations
110 Iowa 310
Disposition
Dismissed.
Headnotes
Appeal: notice on partnership and parties. Where a judgment is in favor of a firm and its members, and notice of appeal is not served on the firm, no relief against the members dependent on a reversal as against the firm can be granted, for the appeal cannot be prosecuted as to it.
Summary
'Appeal from Ida District Court. — Hon. S. M. Elwood, Judge. This is tbe third appeal in this case. See 90 Iowa, 217, and 99 Iowa, 226. This action is for judgment against •O. -W; Rollins & Co., and the other defendants named as members of said co-partnership, for the balance due upon n. promissory note executed in the name of said firm by C. W. Rollins, its manager, for money borrowed and used in the firm’s business. O. W. Rollins failed to appear, and judgment was rendered against him on default. The defendants Alice Sehleiter and Ressa Sehleiter, for themselves and for C. W. Rollins & Co., answered at length, setting up various defenses in favor of said company and in favor of themselves individually, including the defense that C. W. Rollins had no authority to borrow money on the credit of the firm, nor to execute the promissory note sued upon, as plaintiff knew. Plaintiff replied, joining issues on the affirmative allegations of the petition; and upon the issues joined the ease was tried to a jury, and verdict returned against the plaintiff, upon which judgment was rendered, and from which the plaintiff 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 — Given

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

Given, J.

The defendant Ressa Sehleiter is repeatedly named in the record as Ressa Gaines, from which we infer that she has married pending ¡this a-ption;-but, for convenience, we will continue to use the name by which the action was brought against her.

The defendants Alice Sehleiter and Ressa Sehleiter move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that no notice thereof was served upon the defendants O. W. Rollins & •Co. It will be observed that judgment was rendered on ■default against the defendant O. W. Rollins, and that judgment was rendered on the verdict in favor of O. W. Rollins & Co., Alice Sehleiter, and Ressa Sehleiter, to which plaintiff excepted. The notice of appeal is entitled, “Baxter, Reed & Co., Plaintiff, v. C. W. Rollins, Alice Sehleiter, and Ressa *312 'Schleiter, and Ressa Gaines, nee Schleiter, Defendants.” It is addressed to “Alice Schleiter, Ressa Gaines, nee Schleiter,” and to their attorneys named, and to the clerk of the district court, and notifies them that plaintiff appeals-“from all rulings and orders of said court made in said case to which plaintiff took exceptions.” Service was accepted by “E. R. Duffle, attorney for defendants Alice Schleiter and Ressa Gaines,” and by “T. E. Brannan, clerk of the district court of Ida county, Iowa.” The defendant C. AV. Rollins & Go.,is not mentioned in the notice, nor was service accepted for or made upon that defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel contend that service of notice on one partner in an action against a firm confers jurisdiction 'to render judgment against the firm, and cites Saunders v. Bentley, 8 Iowa, 516 ; Walker v. Clark, 8 Iowa, 474 ; Gregory v. Harmon, 10 Iowa, 445 ; Hale v. Van Saun, 18 Iowa, 19 . These casos hold to the effect that, in an action against a firm, service of original notice, addressed to the firm, on one of its members, was a service on the firm. The cases are not in point, as this notice is not addressed to the defendant firm, and does not purport to show an appeal as to it. The plaintiff excepted to the judgment in favor of the firm, and could have had the same reviewed on errors assigned, as between plaintiff and said firm, if the firm had been served with notice of appeal; but, no such notice being served, the judgment is a final adjudication, as between them, that the-defendant firm is not indebted on the note sued upon. Where a party to the record is not served with notice of appeal, the appeal cannot be prosecuted as to him, and no relief based upon a reversal of the judgment against him can begranted in the appellate court. Hunt v. Clark, 46 Iowa, 291 ; Hunt v. Hawley, 70 Iowa, 183 .

The relief asked against Alice and Ressa Schleiter i& -to charge them, as members of the firm of O. W. Ro-llinS & Oo., with the alleged indebtedness of that firm on the note sued upon; and we now inquire whether 'that relief *313 can be granted without reversing the judgment in favor of C. W. Rollins & Co. Section 3468 of the Code contains the following: “Actions may be brought by or against a partnership as such, or against all or either of the individual members thereof, or against it ■ and all, or any, of the members thereof.” Plaintiff could have brought an action against Alice and Ressa Schleiter, or either of them,- to charge them with, this partnership -debt, without joining the firm; but, to maintain such action, the plaintiff would have to show that the alleged indebtedness existed. In such a case it would be a complete defense to show that, as between the plaintiff and the alleged debtor, it had been finally adjudicated that there was no indebtedness as. claimed. As the case now stands, the plaintiff can never assert this-indebtedness against O. W. Rollins & Go., and therefore cannot assert it against Alice and Ressa Schleiter, as members of that firm. The relief asked cannot be granted without reversing the judgment in favor of C. W. Rollins Co., and this we cannot do, as that company is not made a party to this appeal. The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. — Dismissed.

Granger, O. J., not sitting.

How later courts describe this case

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

1911: 11913: 11920: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell228 U.S. 278 (1913)
  2. John Bollman Co. v. S. Bachman & Co.117 P. 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)
  3. Fairchild v. Plank189 Iowa 639 (1920)

Most recent

  1. Fairchild v. Plank189 Iowa 639 (1920)
  2. McLaughlin Brothers v. Hallowell228 U.S. 278 (1913)
  3. John Bollman Co. v. S. Bachman & Co.117 P. 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Hunt v. Hawley, 30 N.W. 477 (Iowa 1886) 19
Hale v. Van Saun, 18 Iowa 19 (1864) 7
Saunders v. Bentley, 8 Iowa 516 (1859) 4
Gregory, Tilton & Co. v. Harmon, 10 Iowa 445 (1860) 3
Hunt v. Clark, 46 Iowa 291 (1877) 3
Walker v. Clark, 8 Iowa 474 (1859) 2

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