Glenn v. Glenn
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. IN EQUITY: FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. On the 10th day of November, 1860, John M. Glenn, for the professed consideration of $5,040, conveyed to his two sons, James Glenn and Henry Glenn, a large and valuable farm, known as “the Grlenn farm.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson District Court. IN EQUITY: FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. On the 10th day of November, 1860, John M. Glenn, for the professed consideration of $5,040, conveyed to his two sons, James Glenn and Henry Glenn, a large and valuable farm, known as “the Grlenn farm.” At the same time, he conveyed to these sons a large amount of personal property by bill of sale absolute, for the professed consideration oí' $856. At this time the defendants, Andrew J. Davis and Christian. Berger, were severally creditors of the said John M., and notice of the commencement of their suits to recover…
1Opinion of the CourtDilloN, J.
i. deposi-notice.’ I. On behalf of Davis and Berger, notice to take depositions was duly served by the sheriff upon the attorneys of record (Negus & Culbertson) of Charles T. Glenn and Edward J. Smith, who afterward moved to suppress the depositions, because no notice had been served upon the other Glenns, parties to the proceeding.
The answer to the objection is obvious. The notice having been properly served upon the attorneys of record of the parties who moved to suppress it, they could not object to the deposition because some one else had not been notified.
g Rbaud-ofnreaíaü0e estate. II.…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Goshorn's Ex'r v. SnodgrassWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
- Williams v. Commercial National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1907
- Kanawha Valley Bank v. WilsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Rouse v. RouseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
- Claflin v. FoleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.