ROSENBAUM v. c0UNc1L BLUFFS ms. 00. `9
the reformation of the contract of insurance, and praying for appropriate
relief. The issue thus made would be equitable, to be heard and deter-
mined by the court as a court of equity; but this would have been entirely
proper under the state practice. Thus in Nowlin v. Pgne, 47 Iowa, 293,
which _was commenced as an action at law upon a written contract, a de-
murrer was interposed to the action; and after the decision thereon as `
answer was tiled, setting forth grounds for the reformation of the written
contract, and, this answer being treated as a cross-petition in equity, the
court below reformed the contract, and decided the cause upon the terms
of such reformed contract; and upon appeal the supreme court affirmed
the decision. In Mcilucker v. Taggart, 29 Iowa, 478, the action was
commenced at law upon the covenant as a deed. The defendant averred
that there was a mistake in the deed, and prayed its reformation. The
cause was transferred to the chancery docket, heard upon the evidence',
and a decree entered reforming the deed. Upon appeal the supreme
court reversed the case on the facts, but sustained the practice followed
in presenting the issue. In Hablitzel v. Lathmn, 35 Iowa, 550, it appears
e that the action was at law, to recover against the defendants as stock-
holders in an insurance company. The defendants filed a cross-bill, mak-
ing the insurance company a party thereto, as well as the plaintiffs, and
charged collusion between them, setting up various facts showingthe
need for equitable interference, and asked that the cause be transferred
to the equity docket, and that plaintiEl"s action at law be stayed. 4 The
court appointed a receiver, as asked in the cross-bill, and granted an or-
der staying the plaintiffs action at law. .Upon appeal the supreme court af-
firmed the action of the trial court. It is hardly necessary to cite further
authorities for the purpose of showing that, under the provisions of the
Code of Iowa, the courts of the state have full power., when an action at
law is brought, and it appears that cause exists for reforming the written
contract sued on, or when for any good reason it is necessary to hear and
determine equitable issues, to allow a proper amendment to the pleadings .
tobe tiled, and*to hear and determine such equitable issues, and in the
mean time to stay the hearing of the action at law. The act of congress
assimilatingthe practice in law actions in the United States courts to
that obtaining in the state courts requires that the courts of the United
· States shall follow the state rules, as near as may be. Owing to the rule
in the United States courts that matters cognizable in equity only cannot
be heard and determined in an action at law, but that equitable relief
can be had only upon a proper proceeding brought in the court of
equity, it was impossible for the court to permit‘· an amendment to be
tiled upon the ruling on the deniurrer, setting up the grounds alleged to
exist for the reformation of the contract. Could this practice have been
permitted, then, upon the tiling of the amendment, no final judgment
could have been rendered upon the demurrer, but the issue of law would
remain undetermined until action had been had upon the equitable
issue touching the reformation of the contract. Under these circum-
stances, the court, following the rule of the state practice as nearly as
could be done, stayed the law action for the purpose of permitting the