City of Burlington v. Fear
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Des Moines District Court. — Hon. James D. Smyti-i, Judge. The question to be disposed of arises on a motion made by plaintiff for a nunc pro tunc judgment against the defendants. The motion was denied, and plaintiff appeals.—
1Opinion of the Court
Waterman, J. —
The facts which 'gave rise to the motion made are as follows: In September, 1898, appellant brought an action against Fear, who was city auditor, and the other two defendants named herein, who were sureties on Fear’s bond. The case was tried to a jury in September, 1899; and, on the conclusion of plaintiff’s testimony, counsel for the sureties (not representing Fear) asked a directed verdict for nominal damages against their clients. This was ordered, and a verdict for one cent damages was returned. Counsel for plaintiff then announced they would prepare a form of judgment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ritchey v. FisherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hoffman-Bruner Granite Co. v. StarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906