86 Iowa 363 | Iowa | 1892
The petition alleges that from the year 1867 until about the year 1885 the plaintiff was employed by, and rendered services for, the defendant in loaning and collecting money, and in renting and selling houses, and in collecting rents, of the value of seven hundred dollars, no part of which has been paid. The answer denies the alleged employment and indebtedness, and pleads a settlement; also a prior adjudication; and that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. After the evidence had been fully submitted, the defendant moved the court to take the case from the jury, and render a judgment in favor of the defendant, for the reason that the evidence showed a .prior adjudication of the cause of. action alleged in the petition, and that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The motion was sustained.
The defendant is a nonresident of the state, but he entered a general, appearance in the case, and made a defense on the merits. A personal judgment could have been rendered against him, had the plaintiff succeeded. Therefore jurisdiction of the district court and of this court is not dependent upon the attachment, and there is nothing in the sections quoted to authorize a conclusion to the contrary. They regulate the time for taking an appeal from an order or judgment discharging an attachment in order to preserve the attachment lien, but do not affect the right of appeal for other purposes,'although in Some cases an appeal might be fruitless if not so taken as to prevent a dissolution of the attachment, and for that reason this court might refuse to entertain it. There is nothing in the cases of Harger v. Spofford, 44 Iowa, 369, Ryan v. Heenan, 76 Iowa, 590, and Farwell v. Tiffany, 82 Iowa, 405, relied upon by appellee, nor in the case of Peterson v. Hays, 85 Iowa, 14, in conflict with the conclusion we have announced. The motion to dismiss is overruled.
The charge to the jury contains the following: “By way of cross demand, the defendant avers that from 1867 to date of answer the defendant was engaged as an agent of plaintiff in the employment of loaning and collecting money, renting and selling houses under plaintiff’s authority and direction of plaintiff, and that the services so performed by defendant for plaintiff, as such agent, were worth two thousand dollars, for which he prays judgment. Under the issues thus joined * -*• * you will return your verdict. The burden of proof is on the defendant to establish his defense. The defendant has offered no evidence to support his cross demand for services, and so you will not consider that matter.” The jury returned a verdict for two hundred and fifty dollars in favor of Shannon,, and judgment for that amount was rendered on the sixteenth day of June, 1886, in favor of the plaintiff. We have set out all the evidence of a former adjudication which the record contains.
The burden was on the defendant to show that the particular matter in controversy in this action was
The conclusions we have announced render a con