Anderson v. Kerr
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Fayette District Court. Aotion on two promissory notes. Judgment for the plaintiff and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
The first assignment of error is that there was not sufficient service to give jurisdiction over the person. It would certainly be more correct for the sheriff to say he read the notice to the defendant, instead of merely saying that he read it in his presence and hearing. But the defect is remedied when the defendant demanded a copy, which the sheriff, in his return, says he did, and that it was given.
The second assignment is answered by the case of McCaffree v. Guesford, 1 Iowa 80, which holds that, though the petition is not filed at the time named in the notice, it is sufficient if filed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Butcher v. BrandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- Haven & Buck v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- McCaffree v. GuesfordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
3Cited by7 opinions
- Owens v. City of MarionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Griffin & Adams v. HarrimanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Sioux County v. KostersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1922
- Spaulding v. LaybournSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Adkins v. Selbyville Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.