Duncan v. Hobart
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Marshall District Court. This was a “ civil action in the district court,” commenced in September, 1858, to foreclose a mortgage, under chapter 118 of the Code. As required by the petition, defendants answered under oath. To this answer, there was a demurrer, which was sustained. Another answer was then filed, duly verified, “ admitting the justice of theplaintiff s claim.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Marshall District Court. This was a “ civil action in the district court,” commenced in September, 1858, to foreclose a mortgage, under chapter 118 of the Code. As required by the petition, defendants answered under oath. To this answer, there was a demurrer, which was sustained. Another answer was then filed, duly verified, “ admitting the justice of theplaintiff s claim.” Defendants then moved to continue the cause until the next term, for the reason that no judgment could legally be entered, until after one continuance. This motion was overruled, and judgment entered for…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
It is objected that the demurrer to defendant’s first answer, was improperly sustained. Without examining this answer, we dismiss it with the remark, that if the rule that a party, by answering over, waives his right to make such an objection in this court, should ever be rigorously enforced, it should be in a case like this, where the second answer admits, under oath, the entire justness and correctness of the plaintiff’s claim. After this admission, there was nothing left of law- or fact to try; for the right of the plaintiff to recover, in manner and form as prayed for in his petition, was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McKee v. Illinois Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Delaware County Bank v. DuncombeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Dickerson v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1861
- Butler v. McCallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863