Hoefer v. City of Burlington
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Des Moines District Gowrt The plaintiff was marshal in and for the defendant during the year 1876, and brought this action to recover one dollar per day for attendance in the police court in addition to a stated salary. The defendant pleaded a counter-claim and denied plaintiff’s right to recover. By consent there was a reference to Hon. F. W. Newman, who made a finding of facts, and recommended that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Des Moines District Gowrt The plaintiff was marshal in and for the defendant during the year 1876, and brought this action to recover one dollar per day for attendance in the police court in addition to a stated salary. The defendant pleaded a counter-claim and denied plaintiff’s right to recover. By consent there was a reference to Hon. F. W. Newman, who made a finding of facts, and recommended that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff. Exceptions were filed to the report of the referee, which were overruled and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the Court
Servers^ On. J.
To the report of the referee the following objections were filed: 1. The referee erred in holding that “as a matter of law the marshal was elected in March, 1876, for two 'years, with a stated salary, fixed by ordinance, exclusive of the service rendered at the police court at one dollar per day.” 2. The referee erred in his conclusion of law upon “the agreement of facts,” and facts found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. 3. The referee erred in disallowing the defendant’s counter-claim. The only error assigned is in these words: “The court erred in overruling the.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Oschner v. SchunkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- Reilly v. RinglandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
3Cited by1 opinion
- Swift v. MulkeyOregon Supreme Court · 1889