Case ID: iowa_128/html/0155-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Mary McCormick, Appellant, and George B. Perkins, Appellee.
    Appeal: assignment of error: affirmance. Where a paper filed in the submission of a cause on appeal and denominated “argument of appellant” contains no statement of the grounds of objection to the judgment or order appealed from, the same does not amount to an assignment of error, and the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed on motion without considering the merits of the case.
    
      Appeal from Sac District Court.— Hon. Z. A. Church, Judge.
    Wednesday, April 12, 1905.
    On the 23d day of October,-1900, Peter McCormick’s undivided one-fifth interest in a tract of land, of which his mother died seised, was sold to satisfy a judgment which the plaintiff' had obtained against him in 1889, and a certificate of sale issued accordingly. Thereafter Mary McCormick began suit to enjoin the issuance of sheriff’s deed on the ground that she had acquired title to Peter’s interest in the land under deed dated March 26, 1900, but recorded long after the sale. On hearing, the district court dismissed her petition, and she appealed to this court. McCormick v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., 120 Iowa, 593. After the appeal was perfected, and on October 22, 1901, she applied for an order staying the issuance of a sheriff’s deed and extending the time of redemption until the issues involved could be determined by this court, for that the decree of the district court was erroneous, and “ for the purpose of protecting her rights in the matter.” The motion was sustained, and an order entered “ staying sheriff’s deed of the land in question, and extending time for redemption pending the appeal.” The decree of the district court was affirmed May 22, 1903, and on the following day this court, on its own'motion, entered an order extending the time of redemption for sixty days. A petition for re-hearing was filed and overruled. After the decree had been entered in the district court, partition proceedings were instituted, and on January 16, 1902, sale of the land was ordered, and it was directed that one-fifth of the proceeds, after payment of costs and attorney’s fees, “ be deposited with the clerk of the court to await the further order of the court in the case of Mary McCormick v. McCormick Harvester Machine. Co. et al.” When the sale was made, does not appear. Mary McCormick seems to have requested the clerk of court to apply enough of this to redeem the land from the certificate of sale, and turn the balance over to her, which he refused to do. Thereupon this suit was begun' June 11, 1903, to restrain the clerk from paying any part of such fund to Mary McCormick or any one other than plaintiff. On July 2d the clerk ascertained the amount required to redeem, and she paid it into his hands for that purpose, and it has remained there since. On July 20, 1903, the McCormick Harvesting Company moved that the last order of this court extending .the time of redemption be expunged from the. record, and on the 23d day of October following the motion was sustained. A few days later a motion by Mary McCormick to set the last order aside was overruled. Upon this state of facts, the district court held the attempt of Mary McCormick to redeem ineffectual, and ordered the clerk to pay the entire fund in his hands to the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.—
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Charles D. Goldsmith and George W. Bowen, for appellant.
    
      Healy Bros., é Kelleher, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Several doubtful questions appear in tbe record before us, but, for some reason, counsel for appellant has omitted to argue any of them. Tbe paper entitled “ Argument of Appellant ” consists of an incomplete statement of facts which are said to “ present tbe single issue raised in tbe court below:

“ l)id the order of the Supreme Court of Iowa, .made on the 22d day of Qctober, 1901, bave the force and effect of giving Mary McCormick the right to redeem during the time her appeal was pending in that court ? ” — and continues:
“ Judgment Appealed From.
“ Tbe court below decided that tbe order of tbe Supreme Court was made without jurisdiction and void, and that Mary McCormick’s time of redemption was not extended thereby, and that redemption bad not been made in time, and ordered tbe full amount of tbe money in tbe clerk’s bands turned over to plaintiff.
Tbe appellant relies upon this error-, and it is submitted, upon tbe
Authority
of the orders made in the case of McCormick v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co., 120 Iowa, 593, that the judgment of the court below should be reversed.”

This is all of it, save tbe attorney’s signature. It seems unnecessary to say that this is not an argument. No reason is suggested for denominating tbe ruling of the district court an error, and. this alone was not sufficient. The decision of the nisi prius court is presumed to bave been correct, and more than tbe mere assurance of the litigant that an error bas been committed is exacted, before be is entitled -to further bearing. An elaborate argument is not essential, but every person invoking the jurisdiction of this court must state tbe grounds of bis objection to tbe judgment or order appealed . from. This rule ■ has long obtained, and is of universal application. Siltz v. Hawk- eye Ins. Co., 71 Iowa, 710; Neimeyer v. Weyerhauser, 95 Iowa, 497; City of Ottumwa v. Hodge, 112 Iowa, 430; Hoyt v. Railway, 117 Iowa, 296; Thomas v. Hecker (Iowa, 90 N. W. 598; Riordan v. Guggerty, 74 Iowa, 688; 2 Cyc. 1016.

Moreover, rule 54 requires that “ the brief shall contain, under a separate heading of each error relied on, separately numbered propositions or points, stated concisely and without argument or elaboration, together with the authorities relied on in support of them. . . . No alleged error or point, not contained in this statement of points, shall be raised afterwards, either by reply brief or in oral or printed argument.” “ (56) The briefs of any party may be followed by an argument in support of such briefs, which shall be distinct therefrom but shall be bound with the same. The argument shall be confined to discussion and elaboration of the points contained in the briefs in the order stated.” When the reasons for appellant’s contention appear in the points or propositions contained in his brief, subsequent elaboration by way of argument is optional, but both cannot be omitted. The paper filed contains neither points, propositions, nor argument; and, because of the omission, the appellee’s demand on this ground that the order of the district court be affirmed, without considering the merits must be, and is, sustained.— Affirmed.