Lowenstein v. Monroe
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from' Polh Oi/rcuit Oourt. A petition was filed, asking a writ of attachment. The verification, made by an attorney, was as follows: “the facts set forth in the foregoing petition as grounds for the attachment, and the same are within my own knowledge, and the same are true as I verily believe.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from' Polh Oi/rcuit Oourt. A petition was filed, asking a writ of attachment. The verification, made by an attorney, was as follows: “the facts set forth in the foregoing petition as grounds for the attachment, and the same are within my own knowledge, and the same are true as I verily believe.” The intervenor, claiming the property attached by virtue of a general assignment made to him by the defendant, filed a motion t© quash the attachment, because the petition was not properly and sufficiently verified. Before this motion was submitted to the court the plaintiff, in pursuance of…
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
It is not claimed the petition verified by the plaintiff was not sufficiently verified, but the point made is that, as the original petition was verified only as to the sufficiency of the causes of attachment, the defect was one which could not be cured by amendment.
We think otherwise. The defect, under section 3021 of the Code, could be well cured, and it was properly done by the verified amended petition. Murdough v. McPherrin 49 Iowa, 479.
Affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Murdough v. McPherrinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sannoner v. Jacobson & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Starkey v. LunzOregon Supreme Court · 1910
- Hilbish v. AsadaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
- Magoon v. GillettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880