Case ID: iowa_39/html/0574-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Day, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Loring v. Holt.
    Practice; new trial: bond. Under See. 2811 of the Code, the court may make the filing of a bond in a sum equal to the amount of the verdict, conditioned for the payment of the judgment and costs, the condition of granting a new trial.
    
      Appeal from Winneshieh Circuit Court.
    
    Wednesday, October 21.
    ■ This action was commenced before a justice of the peace for the recovery of damages on account of slanderous words, alleged to have been spoken of plaintiff by defendant. The answer contains a general denial, and alleges that the words spoken were spoken without malice and in discharge of defendant’s duty. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $10.00. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court, where a jury trial was had, and a verdict was returned for plaintiff for $100.00. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and the subsequent proceedings, as stated in the abstract, were as follows:
    
      “ Motion for new trial sustained on condition that defendant file a new bond in the penal sum of $100.00, conditioned for the payment of judgment and costs. Defendant refused to file bond. Motion for new trial overruled. Defendant excepts. Judgment on the verdict.” Defendant appeals.
    
      Willett <£) Wellington, for appellant.
    
      John T. Clark & Co., for appellee.
   Day, J.

The court granted defendant a new trial upon the condition of his filing a bond in a sum equal to the verdict against him, conditioned for the payment of judgment and costs. Under section 3118 of Revision, 2831 of Code, it was competent for the court to make the filing of such bond the condition of granting a new trial. This section provides that the court may determine not to grant a new trial, unless certain terms or conditions named by the court shall be agreed to by tbe opposite party. As the defendant refused to comply with the terms which the -court prescribed, and which, under the circumstances of the case, were not unreasonable, his motion for new trial was properly overruled.

Affirmed.