Seddon v. State
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Appanoose District Court. — .Hon. Erank W. Eichelberuer, Judge. This is a proceeding to vacate a certain liquor injunction decree rendered by the district court of Appanoose county on the fourteenth day of May, 1895, in an action wherein the state was plaintiff, and the plaintiff herein and one William Wilson were defendants, on the grounds: (1) That the decree was irregularly obtained; (2) that it was obtained through fraud practiced by the successful party in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Appanoose District Court. — .Hon. Erank W. Eichelberuer, Judge. This is a proceeding to vacate a certain liquor injunction decree rendered by the district court of Appanoose county on the fourteenth day of May, 1895, in an action wherein the state was plaintiff, and the plaintiff herein and one William Wilson were defendants, on the grounds: (1) That the decree was irregularly obtained; (2) that it was obtained through fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the decree; (8) for unavoidable misfortune, preventing the. plaintiff from appearing and defending the main…
1Opinion of the CourtDeemeb, J.
1 *3822 *379It may be conceded that plaintiff sets forth facts in her petition which would have constituted a defense to the original action had she appeared and presented them at a proper time. ' Her petition was presented, however, after the term at which the decree was rendered, and it is necessary for her to establish some one or more of the grounds alleged by her as a reason for vacating the decree. That she was duly served with an original notice of the suit in which she and Wilson were defendants is conceded, and it is also admitted that she permitted a default to be taken against her and the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Heathcote v. Haskins & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Fries & Co. v. PorchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Teabout v. Roper & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- State v. HaskellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866