Holmes v. Budd
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Linn District Court. This was a proceeding by attachment against the defendants, who were claimed by plaintiffs to have been a firm, doing business under the name and style of “E. R. Budd.” The partnership is denied by all ,of the defendants, excepting E. R. Budd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn District Court. This was a proceeding by attachment against the defendants, who were claimed by plaintiffs to have been a firm, doing business under the name and style of “E. R. Budd.” The partnership is denied by all ,of the defendants, excepting E. R. Budd. Various assignments of errors are made by the appellants, - relating to the ruling of the court below, upon motions to quash the original notice; the writ of attachment; to dismiss the suit, and to exclude certain evidence from the jury. , argued: • 1. That the bond filed in this case was not a defective- one which may…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
I. The first assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court upon defendant’s motion to quash the writ of attachment. This motion was based upon the insuffi*188ciency of the attachment bond filed by the plaintiffs prior to the issuance of the said writ. The plaintiffs filed an amended bond, to which there was no objection made by defendants. It is admitted by the appellants that plaintiffs had a right to file an amended bond in said cause under the provisions of section 2511 of the Code, where the original one was defective. It is, however, claimed that there was no bond on file when the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Churchill v. FulliamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Cheever v. LaneSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
3Cited by3 opinions
- McArthur v. SchultzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
- Mornyer v. CooperSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Noll v. Cumberland Plateau RailroadTennessee Supreme Court · 1903