Opinion ID: 1949698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant relies upon following errors for reversal.

Text: 1. Overruling defendant's motion to drop parties, for the reason the petition shows on its face the plaintiffs are improperly joined, and same is not a proper class action under Rule 42. 2. Overruling defendant's motion to transfer to law. 3. Overruling defendant's motion to quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum. 4. Failing to sustain defendant's resistance to plaintiffs' application for appointment of a receiver. Since the basis of this action is our decision in Huntsman v. Miller, supra, we will briefly review the case. Huntsman brought an action to recover funds held by defendant (same as defendant herein) for alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged the provisions under which the funds were withheld by defendant constituted a penalty. Such provisions, as quoted from Huntsman case, are as follows: `(9). The Second Party, (plaintiff's assignor), shall furnish a surety bond in the amount of $1,000.00    conditioned upon full and faithful performance hereunder   , provided that in lieu of such bond, the Second Party may deposit with the First Party the sum of $1,000.00 in cash, either as a lump sum or by authorizing the First Party to withhold 10% of all payments otherwise due the Second Party until such withholdings aggregate $1,000.00. If the Second Party shall render full and faithful performance    the deposit shall be paid over to the Second Party,   ; but if the Second Party shall fail to render such full and faithful performance, then the First Party    shall be entitled to the $1,000.00.    `(16). It is expressly understood and agreed that if the Second Party shall be in default under any of the terms of this agreement or shall be in violation of the Interstate Commerce Commission Motor Carriers' Safety Regulations, or shall falsify his records or commit any other illegal act, or shall fail or refuse to have said equipment available as contemplated hereunder, then and in any such events, the First Party may terminate this agreement forthwith, and retain any amount then held by it under the provisions of paragraph (9).' Elsewhere in the contract are other requirements to be performed by the second party, such as: keeping the equipment in good condition and appearance; paying the wages of any relief drivers and social security, unemployment and other taxes; pay all license and permits fees arising out of the use of the equipment; save first party harmless from all cargo loss or damage due to the negligence of the second party; and to reimburse first party for any expense, cost or damage due to delay by the second party in the pick-up, transportation or delivery of any load. In a pre-trial conference it was stipulated that defendant had withheld from plaintiff or his assignor under said contract the sum of $754.53. In support of our decision we cited the following cases: Kelly v. Fejervary, 111 Iowa 693, 83 N.W. 791; State ex rel. Switzer v. Overturff, 239 Iowa 1039, 33 N.W.2d 405, 4 A.L.R.2d 1343; Holt v. Doty, 193 Iowa 582, 588, 187 N.W. 550, 552; Foley v. McKeegan, 4 Iowa 1; Sanders v. McKim, 138 Iowa 122, 115 N.W. 917; McMurray v. Faust, 224 Iowa 50, 276 N.W. 95; 25 C.J.S. Damages § 111; 15 Am.Jur., Damages, § 253; Restatement, Contracts, § 339-1b. Our decision was: Under the authorities, above cited, the trial court correctly held that these provisions constituted a penalty and that they were void. This is the only question decided in the Huntsman case. Defendant claimed he should have had the right to prove actual damages occasioned by plaintiff's breach. However, defendant filed no pleading claiming specific damages and the trial court correctly held the question was not in the case. In view of our decision in the current case, the gate is open for defendant to plead specific damages as to any breach of contract on the part of remaining plaintiffs herein, or any other parties who might sue.