Case Name: Jones v. Clark and Clark
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1871-06-12
Citations: 31 Iowa 497
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jones v. Clark and Clark.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 497–499

Head Matter:
Jones v. Clark and Clark.
Amendment! after cause is remanded : equitable jurisdiction. Where the decree in a chancery case is, upon the merits, modified and affirmed on appeal to the supreme court, and the cause remanded for the district court to enter and enforce the decree, the appellee will be allowed to amend his pleading, asking judgment for the value of property adjudged by the decree to. belong to him, but which the opposite party has, instead of delivering up to him, converted to his own use.
Appeal from Dubuque District Court.
Monday, June 12.
The following brief statement presents tbe question involved in tbis case. Tbe plaintiff filed bis petition in equity, alleging that John Clark bad entered into a written agreement witb plaintiff for the leasing of a certain mining interest at Dubuque, and that- Ezekiel Clark bad become interested witb John Clark as a.partner, and that they bad wrongfully taken away, certain machinery and tools, and bad paid out of tbe funds received for tbe mineral $1,600 for two boilers, wbieh Ezekiel Clark claims as bis own property, but which are the property of plaintiff. Tbe defendant John Clark claimed, in bis cross bill, various sums of money of plaintiff, and Ezekiel Clark alleged that tbe boilers were purchased witb bis money, and were bis individual property. Tbe cause was referred to D. 0. Cram to bear the evidence and report upon the issues, and, in tbe further progress of tbe case, such proceedings were bad that John Clark was found entitled to tbe sum of $1,185, and Ezekiel Clark was found to be tbe' owner of tbe two boilers. Upon appeal to tbe supreme court tbe decree was modified as to a portion of tbe sum allowed John Clark, and affirmed as to tbe finding that Ezekiel Clark was owner of the two boilers, and the cause was remanded to the district court to enter and enforce the modified decree.
The procedendo being filed and the cause redocketed in the district court, the defendant Ezekiel moved the court for leave to file the following amendments, to wit:
“ And now comes Ezekiel Clark, one of the defendants in the above cause, and by way of amendment to the cross bill heretofore filed by this defendant, re-affirms the allegations thereof, and avers that the said plaintiff refused to deliver up the said two boilers, named in said cross bill, and converted the same to his own use; wherefore the defendant prays judgment and decree against said plaintiff for the value of said boilers, to wit, for the sum of $1,600, with interest and cost of suit.” The plaintiff objecting, the court refused to permit the amendment, holding, “ as a matter of law, that when a chancery ease has been appealed to the supreme court, and has been there heard upon its merits, and is remanded to the district court, with instructions as set forth in the procedendo in this cause, the district court has no power to grant leave to amend.”
The defendant, Ezekiel Clark, appeals.
Shvras, Van Duzee da Henderson for the appellants.
Monroe & Deery, and Adams da Robinson for the appellee.

Opinion:
Day, Ch. J.—
The court was in error in holding that it .had no power to allow the proposed amendments. The court may, at any time, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, permit a party to amend any pleadings or proceedings. Rev., § 2977, This case involved a controversy as to the ownership of two boilers. The plaintiff, and the defendant, Ezekiel Clark, each claimed them. The decree of the district court, which was affirmed on appeal to the supreme court, settled the title of this property in the defendant. But, as the defendant had asked no affirmative relief, the decree stopped with simply declaring that he. was the owner of the property. Had the plaintiff yielded obedience to tbis adjudication, no further interposition of tbe court would have been necessary. Tbe proposed amendment, however, alleges that the plaintiff has converted tbe boilers to bis own use. He does not yield to tbe defendant tbe quiet and uninterrupted enjoyment of. bis own property. To that end, tbe defendant must be able to wield tbe strong arm of tbe law. He needs a decree for tbe return of tbe property, or for its value, and an award of execution for the enforcement of tbe decree. .Under the present state of tbe pleadings, be is not entitled to such relief. If he is not allowed to amend, be must be driven to a separate action, in order to avail himself of tbe benefits of tbe decree in his favor. We see no good reason for driving him to tbis circuity of action. Tbe law does not favor a multiplicity of suits. "When a court of equity has acquired jurisdiction of a cause, it will retain it for tbe purpose of disposing of tbe entire case, and administering complete justice to tbe parties.
In our opinion, tbe permitting of the amendment offered would have been in furtherance of justice, and tbe court erred in refusing to allow it.
Reversed.