Masterson v. Brown
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from ■ Marshall District Cowrt. On the 28th day of November, 1877, Peter Oarmody commenced an action against defendant, claiming three thousand dollars damages for alleged violent assaults made by defendant upon the said plaintiff. On the 22d day of October, 1878, being the second day of the term, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion suggesting the death of plaintiff, and that A. B. Masterson, administrator of the estate of deceased, be substituted as plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from ■ Marshall District Cowrt. On the 28th day of November, 1877, Peter Oarmody commenced an action against defendant, claiming three thousand dollars damages for alleged violent assaults made by defendant upon the said plaintiff. On the 22d day of October, 1878, being the second day of the term, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion suggesting the death of plaintiff, and that A. B. Masterson, administrator of the estate of deceased, be substituted as plaintiff. Pending said motion for substitution the defendant filed a motion for continuance, supported by an affidavit, as follows:…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
i practicesubstitiu?on of administrator. — I. Appellant claims there was error in overruling his motion for continuance. It is claimed that, upon the substitution of the administrator, the defendant was entitled to time to appear and defend as a new act¿on had been commenced. In case of the death of a party to an action, section 2527 of the Code provides that “the court, on motion, may allow the action to be continued by or against the legal representatives or successors in interest of the deceased. Such action shall be deemed a continuing one, and to have accrued to such representative or…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Sullivan v. NicoulinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Barfield v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Jensen v. MartinsenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940