Walker v. Lathrop
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Henry District Court. In October, 1839, Foster & Easton recovered judgment in the circuit court of Dearborn county, Indiana, against tlie defendant and one Folbre. Prior to 1819, Bailey became wbat is termed in the record, “ replevin bail,” for tlie security and payment of said judgment; and in April of that year, the said judgment, by a proceeding in seire facias, was revived against the said defendants and the said Bailey.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Henry District Court. In October, 1839, Foster & Easton recovered judgment in the circuit court of Dearborn county, Indiana, against tlie defendant and one Folbre. Prior to 1819, Bailey became wbat is termed in the record, “ replevin bail,” for tlie security and payment of said judgment; and in April of that year, the said judgment, by a proceeding in seire facias, was revived against the said defendants and the said Bailey. This action is brought by the administrator of Bailey, to recover the amount paid by decedent, in discharge and satisfaction of said judgment. Judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
Wright, O. J.
— It is first objected, that defendant had no notice of the pendency of the action originally brought by Foster & Easton, in Indiana, nor of the proceeding by seire faeias. The record discloses, however, that he appeared to the action, and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. Having so appeared, he cannot now object that he had no notice — or rather it is immaterial whether ho was or not, served with notice.
Appellant next insists, that there was not 'sufficient evidence to justify the judgment in favor of plaintiff. In what respect it was insufficient, under the state of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dennison v. SoperSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Culver v. Wilbern Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Newell v. MorrowWyoming Supreme Court · 1899
- Thomsen v. KoppSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927