Case Name: Wilson et al. v. Shorick
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1866-10-17
Citations: 21 Iowa 298
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wilson et al. v. Shorick.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 298–300

Head Matter:
Wilson et al. v. Shorick.
1. Appeal: from county court: ruling- on demurrer. Under Section 267,fcB,evision of 1860, the action of the County Court sustaining a demurrer'to a petition and thereupon dismissing the cause, and rendering judgment against the plaintiff for costs, is a decision from, which an appeal lies to the District Court.
Appeal from, Oérro Gordo District Cov/rt.
Wednesday, October 17.
ApPEAL - FROM COUNTY COURT : WHEN TT LIES.-In October, .1861, the County Court of Cerro Gordo county appointed the defendant Shorick, guardian of the plaintiff Wilson. This appointment was made upon the alleged ground that Wilson was of unsound mind. The present . proceeding was commenced in the County Court in July, 1865, by the said Wilson (one Bounce joining in the petition), against the said Shorick; and the petition alleges that said Wilson, is now and ever has been sane; that the appointment of Shorick, as plaintiff’s guardian, was made by the County Court ex jpa/rte, in vacation, and was procured by the false representations of Shorick, &c.; and the prayer is, that the. County Court rehear the matter, and upon such rehearing revoke and annul said appointment of defendant as guardian, &c.
To'this petition defendant demurred for several reasons, such as defect and misjoinder of parties, &c.
This demurrer was sustained by the County Court, to which ruling the plaintiff duly excepted, and the court rendered judgment against the plaintiffs, dismissing their suit and for costs, and refused to receive evidence of the, sanity of Wilson.
From this decision an appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the District Court. In the last named court the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: First. There was no issue of fact to try on the pleadings. Second. The only issue to try, is one of law, which is not triable on appeal.
This motion was overruled by the court, the defendant excepted, and from this decision (overruling his motion to dismiss the appeal) prosecutes an appeal to this court.
J. W. Oarcl for the appellant.
Starr & Patterson for the appellees.

Opinion:
Dillon, J.
Whether the County Court erred in sustaining the demurrer is a question not presented bv the record and upon which it would therefore improper for us to pass.
The only question is, did the District Court decide correctly in refusing, on defendant's motion, to dismiss the appeal? We are of opinion that its ruling was right. We lay down this rule, to wit: Under section 267 of the Revision, the action of the County Court sustaining a demurrer to a petition, and thereupon dismissing the cause and rendering judgment against the. plaintiff for costs, is a decision from which an appeal lies in behalf of the plaintiff to the District, Court. See, as somewhat illustrative of this question, Griffin v. Moss, 3 Iowa, 261; Kimpson v. Hunt, 4 Id., 340; George v. Parker, 16 Id., 530. If the judgment.of the County Court on the demurrer is reversed, the cause may be remanded to that court; if affirmed, that is an end of the cause unless the judgment of the District Court is itself reversed by the Supreme Court. The judgment of the District Court in refusing to dismiss the appeal is accordingly affirmed and the cause remanded to the District Court.
Affirmed.