Case Name: Iowa City v. Johnson County, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1896-10-23
Citations: 99 Iowa 513
Docket Number: 
Parties: Iowa City v. Johnson County, Appellant.
Judges: Robinson, J., taking no part.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Iowa City v. Johnson County, Appellant.
Re-hearing-: must be decided on original record. Where a re-hearing is granted, the case must be submitted on the original record, and where it appears that the supreme court had no jurisdiction at the time the original opinion was filed, because the abstract did not show service of a notice of appeal upon the clerk of the district court, the fact cannot be cured by filing an additional and amended abstract.
Robinson, J., taking no part.
Appeal from Johnson District Court. — Hon. S. H. Fair all, Judge.
Friday, October 23, 1896.
Action at law to recover of the county an amount of money which it is claimed the treasurers thereof unlawfully retained as compensation for collecting certain taxes’for the plaintiff during the years 1880 to 1890, inclusive. The defenses are that the money was voluntarily paid under a mistake of law and cannot be recovered back, that the money was distributed and paid out of the county treasury before this action was commenced, and that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The case was tried to the court on an agreed statement of facts, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Dismissed.
Haulbrecht & LoDejoy and C. 8. Ranch for appellant.
John W. Slater and W. F. Conklin for appellee.

Opinion:
Deemer, J.
This case was originally submitted at the October, 1894, term, and an opinion was filed on the twenty-first day of January, 1895, affirming the judgment of the court below. This opinion will be found in 61 N. W. Rep. 995. Thereafter a petition for a re-he'aring was granted, and the case was re-submitted upon additional arguments. We have now discovered that we had no jurisdiction of the case at the time the original opinion was filed, for the reason that the abstract did not show service of a notice of appeal upon the clerk of the district court. Since the re-hearing was granted, the defendant has attempted to cover the defects by filing an additional and amended abstract. We have uniformly held that .this cannot be done. The case must be submitted on re-hearing upon the original record. No amendments are permitted in a civil case after the petition for re-hearing is granted. As we do not have jurisdiction of the case, it must be msmissed.
Robinson, J., taking no part.