Hidy Bros. v. Hanson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Story District Oourt. — Hon. J. B. Whitaker, Judge. A petition was prepared,, and tbe clerk directed to file it, in eacb of five entitled cases, eacb based on a distinct judgment. The party in whose favor each judgment had been rendered was named as plaintiff, and those against whom, and some others, as defendants, in each case. ■ Answers and replies were filed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Story District Oourt. — Hon. J. B. Whitaker, Judge. A petition was prepared,, and tbe clerk directed to file it, in eacb of five entitled cases, eacb based on a distinct judgment. The party in whose favor each judgment had been rendered was named as plaintiff, and those against whom, and some others, as defendants, in each case. ■ Answers and replies were filed. Whether there was in fact one set of papers treated as five, or five distinct sets of papers does not appear. In either event, each was treated as a separate cause, all were heard on the same evidence, and each decided as…
1Opinion of the Court
Ladd, C. J. —
*10 .1
2
3 *9According to the abstract, notice of appeal was served in the case of Hidy Bros, et al., against Han*10son only, and yet the arguments proceed on the theory that no- ' tices were served in all the cases. It does not appear that the several actions were consolidated. On the contrary, care seems to have been exercised to keep them separate. That they were heard on the same evidence does not alone warrant the conclusion that they were tried as one action. Consolidation is effected by the order of court or agreement of parties. (Jones v. Witousek, 114 Iowa, 14) and the inference…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jones v. J. C. Witousek & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- McConkey v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Colyar v. PettitSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
3Cited by3 opinions
- Danielson v. RedenbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- Harper v. StumpffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- In Re Estate of MannSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930