Rowley & Co. v. Baugh
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Mahaska District Court. The plaintiffs filed in the Mahaska district court a petition alleging that on the 25th day of November, 1870, Richard Hughes commenced an action against plaintiffs, before the defendant, Geo. H. Baugh, mayor of the city of Oskaloosa, to recover the sum of $27.45. That a proper notice was issued and served on plaintiffs, requiring them to appear before said mayor on the 1st day of December, 1870, at 9 o’clock a. m.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mahaska District Court. The plaintiffs filed in the Mahaska district court a petition alleging that on the 25th day of November, 1870, Richard Hughes commenced an action against plaintiffs, before the defendant, Geo. H. Baugh, mayor of the city of Oskaloosa, to recover the sum of $27.45. That a proper notice was issued and served on plaintiffs, requiring them to appear before said mayor on the 1st day of December, 1870, at 9 o’clock a. m. That the parties appeared at said time, and by agreement said action was continued until after the then next ensuing term of the district court…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
I. It is claimed that the plaintiffs’ remedy was by appeal or writ of error, and that, having permitted the time to, elapse within which an appeal could be taken or a writ of error sued out, the remedy is gone by their own neglect. The petition, however, alleges that plaintiffs had no knowledge of the judgment against them until long after the time for appeal or writ of error had passed. To this it is replied that it was plaintiffs’ duty to know of the judgment, and that they did, not know was because of their negligence. We think otherwise. The cause was by consent continued “ until after…
2Cited by4 opinions
- City of Cedar Rapids v. RallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Schiele v. ThedeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Simmons v. DolanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Hensch v. MyersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925