Armentrout v. Baldwin
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Cedar District Court. — Hon. W. N. Treichler, Judge. Action at law upon a promissory note. A writ of attachment was sued out therein. . An independent action was brought by the defendants against the plaintiff upon the attachment bond. These actions were consolidated, and were tried together under title of the first case; the second being treated as a counterclaim in the first. There was a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.
The plaintiff brought his action upon a note not yet due. He asked for a writ of attachment, but did not ask for judgment prior to the maturity of the note. The defendants interposed no defense to the note, but prosecuted only their cross-action on the attachment bond for damages for the wrongful issuing of the attachment. The consolidated case was tried in December, 1911. On December 7, 1911, judgment was entered dismissing the cross-action and taxing the costs to the defendants. The main action was continued to a future day, awaiting the maturity of the note. *412On December 7, 1911, tbe…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Newbury v. Getchell & Martin Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- Ames v. ChirurgSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- McDermott v. HackerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- New Sharon Creamery Co. v. KnowltonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- Farmers State Savings Bank v. MilesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Greeson v. GreesonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Hewitt v. BlaiseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Waterloo Savings Bank v. Town of RedfieldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- Thielen v. SchechingerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.