Loving v. Edes
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Muscatine District Court. Tiie plaintiffs commenced an action against Pa:ro & Nonrse, and caused certain lands to be attached. Edes appeared, alleged that he was the owner of said -real estate, and asked to be made a party defendant, so far as to protect his interest in said property. This motion, against plaintiff ’s objection, was sustained, and the said Edes made a party defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Muscatine District Court. Tiie plaintiffs commenced an action against Pa:ro & Nonrse, and caused certain lands to be attached. Edes appeared, alleged that he was the owner of said -real estate, and asked to be made a party defendant, so far as to protect his interest in said property. This motion, against plaintiff ’s objection, was sustained, and the said Edes made a party defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed. It was also found that the legal title to the land attached was in Edes. From the order sustaining the motion of Edes,…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
The order making Edes a party was clearly irregular. Whipple v. Cass, ante 126; Philips v. Shelton, 6 Iowa, 545. The cause of action was against Pairo & Nonrse, and Edes had no legal interest in that, nor any right to contest the plaintiff’s suit. Indeed, it seems that he made no defense to the action, and no question was made as to the liability of the parties sued, in manner and form, as charged in the petition. The position of Edes is, that Pairo & Nonrse were non-residents, and that if they did not own the land attached, the court had no jurisdiction, and hence no power to render…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phillips v. SheltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Houston Real Estate Investment Co. v. HechlerUtah Supreme Court · 1914
- Sidebottom v. Calhoun Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
- Williams v. WalkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860