53 Iowa 501 | Iowa | 1880
I. The appellant insists, in the first place, that the demurrer should have been overruled for the reason that it is not sufficiently specific.
Code, section 2649, provides that the demurrer shall specify the ground of the objection taken. The demurrer in this case does specify the ground of objection, and is, we think, sufficient in that respect.
II. The petition avers that the certificates of the elections were made in due form of'law. It .is claimed by the appellant that this averment is admitted by the demurrer. The whole ’-petition, however, must he construed together. The certificates having been set out and referred to as a part of the petition, we must take the form of them so shown as conclusive upon that point, and regard the averment in respect to clue form as a conclusion of law.
There is certainly much force in this view, and we should be inelined to sustain it but for tbe fact tbat tbe legislature provided tbat tbe conditions shall be embraced in tbe certificate, and an exact copy of tbe notice be set out -also. We cannot dispense with a legislative provision so clearly expressed, merely upon tbe ground tbat it seems superfluous. Besides, we are not prepared to say that it is superfluous. Tbe certificate is to-be recorded. It and tbe record are to become tbe evidence of tbe rights and obligations of tbe respective parties. We are inclined to think tbat tbe care evinced by tbe provision, to guard against mistakes and accidents, is not greater than tbe importance of tbe matter demanded. It appears to us, therefore, tbat tbe demurrer was properly sustained.
Aeeirmed.