Goddard v. Cunningham
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, the Hardin District Court. Action on a promissory note, payable to the plaintiffs, commenced by attachment. The attachment bond was signed by the plaintiff, by their attorney, who brought the suit. The defendant moved to quash the attachment, on the grounds that the attachment bond was insufficient, and the plaintiffs had never signed the same; which motion, was overruled.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Hardin District Court. Action on a promissory note, payable to the plaintiffs, commenced by attachment. The attachment bond was signed by the plaintiff, by their attorney, who brought the suit. The defendant moved to quash the attachment, on the grounds that the attachment bond was insufficient, and the plaintiffs had never signed the same; which motion, was overruled. The defendant being in default for want of an answer, and a jury called to assess the damages, the plaintiff offered the note in evidence, upon the back of which was indorsed “ Pay to the order of Henn,…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
— The motion to dissolve the attachment was properly overruled. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that it appeared to the district court that the attorney had authority to sign the name of his client to the attachment bond.. After judgment by default, the defendant may appear at the time of the assessment of damages, and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, but for no other purpose. Code, section 1831. The plaintiff being in possession of the note sued on, and being the payee therein, will be presumed to be rightfully in possession of it, and the assignment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gordon v. PittSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Cassady v. MottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Tingle & Isham v. BrisonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- King v. BellamySupreme Court of Kansas · 1910