Andrus v. Clark
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Pottawatamie District Court. Action on two promissory notes. The suit was commenced in .December, 1857, returnable to the February term, 1858, and attachment was sued out under the act of 1853. The cause appears to have been continued at the February term, and at the May term, the defendant was called and a judgment of default entered, and the cause continued to the September term, for final judgment, under the act of 22d of March, 1858. On the day following…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Pottawatamie District Court. Action on two promissory notes. The suit was commenced in .December, 1857, returnable to the February term, 1858, and attachment was sued out under the act of 1853. The cause appears to have been continued at the February term, and at the May term, the defendant was called and a judgment of default entered, and the cause continued to the September term, for final judgment, under the act of 22d of March, 1858. On the day following the default, the defendant filed a motion, supported by affidavit, asking that the default be set aside. The affidavit…
1Opinion of the Court
‘Woodward, J.
There was no error in the decision of the court. The defendant had had one continuance at the February term, and he offers no adequate excuse for his default at the May term. Nor does he show a substantial defense. A part of this answer takes issue on the affidavit for attachment, which is not permissible in this action, as has been several times ruled. Sackett et al. v. Partridge et al., 4 Iowa, 416; Sample v. Griffith, 5 Iowa, 377.
The other portion of his answer is a general denial, which is contradicted by his affidavit, showing that his watch was pledged as security for one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sackett, Belcher & Co. v. PartridgeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
3Cited by1 opinion
- Greasons v. DavisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859