Spearing v. Chambers
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from 8oott Bist/riot Oowrt. Effect on gross petition of dismissing original petition. — Spearing filed his bill, in equity, making William Chambers and S. U. Ingham defendants thereto.
Read the full summary
Appeal from 8oott Bist/riot Oowrt. Effect on gross petition of dismissing original petition. — Spearing filed his bill, in equity, making William Chambers and S. U. Ingham defendants thereto. He alleges, in substance, that he and the two defendants above named were partners in a contract made in 1863, to furnish the United States with two hundred horses for the Seventh Iowa cavalry regiment; that they were to' share equally in the profits and losses of the undertaking; that they all entered upon the performance of the contract and furnished the horses, and made the sum of $3,000 profits, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Dillon, Ch. J.
pleading: original petition: effect on cross petition, Whether the plaintiff had dismissed his petition was a controverted fact, and one which it is obvious could not be decided on the demurrer, If the dismissal of the petition of Spearing x . / ° would be good ground for dismissing the cross petition of Chambers against Ingham, the question should, inasmuch as the fact of the dismission of Spearing’s bill was controverted, have been made by motion; the more so, as the record did not show that Spearing’s bill had been dismissed.
But the substantial point ruled by the court below…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wickliffe v. ClayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1833
- Worrell v. Wade's HeirsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Frost v. MyrickNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Sharp v. Pike's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Novak v. NovakSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908