Hoskins v. Hattenback
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Woodbury District Court. In March, 1858, Hattenback sued the complainant Hos-kins in trespass, and afterwards in October, 1859, recovered judgment for about $2,400. In 1860 (October), this bill was filed for a new trial. All of the pleadings in the law action are set out.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Woodbury District Court. In March, 1858, Hattenback sued the complainant Hos-kins in trespass, and afterwards in October, 1859, recovered judgment for about $2,400. In 1860 (October), this bill was filed for a new trial. All of the pleadings in the law action are set out. It is averred that the main issue in that case was, whether the alleged purchase of the goods in controversy by Hattenback from Henneman & G-ambert, was fraudulent and void as against creditors, that complainant established the fraudulent purpose on the part of the debtors but was unable to bring such knowledge…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
By the Revision of 1860, § 3116, it is declared that the facts stated in the petition therein con*318templated shall be considered as denied without answer. As the court below, in this case, on overruling the demurrer, at once entered a decree ordering a new trial, it is manifest that the bill was treated as in equity, addressed to the chancellor, asking a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. And that this is its true character is but too evident from its substance and form. We may dismiss, therefore, the question made by the first ground of demurrer: Whether § 3116 applies to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ballance v. LoomissIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by13 opinions
- Shaw v. AddisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1945
- Hitt v. CarrIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- Brake v. PayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Doyle v. DuganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- District Township v. WhiteSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.