Powesheik County v. Mickel
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Powcshcik District Court. The plaintiff sues on a promissory note. The defendant answered at the first term, admitting the execution of the note, but denying any indebtedness thereon to the plaintiff, and averring payment and discharge of the note at its maturity. At a subsequent term, plaintiff replied denying the plea of payment. After this, and at the same term, defendant moved for a change of venue, which was overruled and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
The motion for the change of venue was overruled, for the reason that the defendant did not show that the cause alleged had come to his knowledge since the last continuance. This, it is admittedJie was required to do, *77unless excused therefrom by the condition of the pleadings, And the argument is that previous to the term at which the application was made, the answer stood undenied, that the issue was not made up, and that defendant could not therefore sooner know that the change would be necessary.
According to the rule recognized in Stacy & Thomas v. Stichton & Co., 9 Iowa 399, the issue was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stacy v. Stichton & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1859
3Cited by4 opinions
- Conkling v. . WeatherwaxNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Howerton v. AugustineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Brenton Bros. & Leach v. HillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Conkling v. . WeatherwaxNew York Court of Appeals · 1905