Snell v. Eckerson
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Hamilton District Court. Plaintiffs brought their action to recover fur goods, wares and merchandise sold to defendant, and for an amount paid for him to the firm of Hancock & Co., as shown by bill of particulars annexed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Hamilton District Court. Plaintiffs brought their action to recover fur goods, wares and merchandise sold to defendant, and for an amount paid for him to the firm of Hancock & Co., as shown by bill of particulars annexed. The bill of particulars contains a number of items, the last one being “ May 17,1857. To amount paid Hancock & Co., $45,35.” The defendant answered, denying all the matter contained in the petition ; denying any indebtedness to Hancock & Co., and any payment to them by plaintiifs, or if made, that it was without his knowledge, authority or request. An…
1Opinion of the Court
Weight, 0. J.
The objection made to the affidavit for the attachment, so far as urged in argument, is, that it docs not appear that the justice before whom the petition was sworn to, was an officer within this state,, nor does it appear where the affidavit was made. The first part of this objection was not made in the court below, and is, therefore, not considered here.
The affidavit attached to the petition, is signed, and then follows these words: “ Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 26th day of February, 1858. IT. B. JMLartin, J. P.” The petition is entitled, and directed to the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Crowell v. JohnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1873
- Kossuth County State Bank v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Milligan v. ZellerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Turner v. LoomisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Quintero v. MoralesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.