Eno v. Hunt
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Clayton District Court. Plaintiff sues for the value of a horse sold under execution, issued by the defendant, as a justice of the peace. The issue being made up, and trial had, the jury returned a verdict as follows: “ We, the jury, find the value of the horse to be one hundred and fifty dollars,” Judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of plaintiff for that amount, with costs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Clayton District Court. Plaintiff sues for the value of a horse sold under execution, issued by the defendant, as a justice of the peace. The issue being made up, and trial had, the jury returned a verdict as follows: “ We, the jury, find the value of the horse to be one hundred and fifty dollars,” Judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of plaintiff for that amount, with costs. This was at the October term, 1856, and this appeal was perfected in June, 185J. In September, 1851, a motion was made to amend the record, based upon an affidavit to the effect, that the jury…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
It is very clear that the judgment was not authorized from the verdict. There was no finding in favor of either party. As far as the record discloses, the verdict practically amounted to nothing. Can the subsequent proceedings aid the plaintiff? We think not, for two reasons.
At the time the motion was made, the cause was pending in this court. It was at least irregular and improper to make any move in it, in the court below, withont notice to the adverse party. After appeal, defendant was not bound to take notice of what might be done in the district court.
In the next place, the amendment…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Todhunter v. De GraffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
- Sergio v. UtterbackSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Keeney v. LyonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Stern v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1870