Parvin v. Hoopes
Supreme Court of Iowa
Error to Muscatine. Action of assumpsit on a note, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The record states that at the November term 1842, the defendant made default, “ and neither of the parties requiring a jury it is ordered that the clerk assess the damages, which being assessed at $106.” Judgment was rendered accordingly.
Read the full summary
Error to Muscatine. Action of assumpsit on a note, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff in error. The record states that at the November term 1842, the defendant made default, “ and neither of the parties requiring a jury it is ordered that the clerk assess the damages, which being assessed at $106.” Judgment was rendered accordingly. To reverse this judgment Parvin assigns for error: 1. That after the defendant was defaulted no jury was called to hear the proof and assess the damages. 2. That after a default no proof of the execution of the instrument was given ; the same being at…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Mason, Chief Justice.
The first point made in the assignment of errors, is that no jury was called to assess the damages after default taken. The action being brought on an instrument of writing for the payment of money, this objection was probably made without a reference to the 13th section of the practice act.
The second objection is, that the record contains nothing to show that the signature was proved. The few required such proof in cases like the present, before judgment was rendered. The court will be presumed to have done right in this respect, until the contrary is shown.
The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Main v. CasserlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Krutz v. RobbinsWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- La Forge v. CooterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935