Taylor, Shipman & Co. v. Runyan
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jefferson District Gourt. Suit on a judgment rendered in the Court of Common Pleas, of Eayette county, Pennsylvania, (vide S. C. 3 Iowa, 474.) Since the former hearing in this court, plaintiffs amended their petition, defendant (Brown) answered, under oath, and called upon plaintiffs to reply in the same way. Plaintiffs did reply, denying all of the allegations of the answer, but not under oath.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson District Gourt. Suit on a judgment rendered in the Court of Common Pleas, of Eayette county, Pennsylvania, (vide S. C. 3 Iowa, 474.) Since the former hearing in this court, plaintiffs amended their petition, defendant (Brown) answered, under oath, and called upon plaintiffs to reply in the same way. Plaintiffs did reply, denying all of the allegations of the answer, but not under oath. On the trial the plaintiffs introduced the transcript attached to their petition, a copy of certain rules in force in said Common Pleas Court, and the Statute of Pennsylvania. Upon this…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
It is first claimed that the answer of defendants not being replied to under oath, is to be taken as true, and that, if thus treated, the verdict of the jury was plainly and manifestly against the evidence. In a proper case, the party filing such sworn pleading, may compel a reply under oath, and for such purpose may have the cause continued. When he does not insist upon it, however, but goes to trial upon an issue which his adversary presents, but not under oath, we do not understand that the pleading sworn to is to be taken as true. The intention of the law was not so much to make the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Newburn v. LucasSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Green v. Equitable Mutual Life & Endowment Ass'n of WaterlooSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Varner v. Interstate ExchangeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- In re the Will of CapperSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
- Cutino Co. v. WeeksSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927