Saunders v. Bentley
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Henry District Court. Tins action was commenced against James Craig and George W. Bentley, and claims that they were partners by th.e name and style of Craig & Bentley, and as such, with one Burris, made their promissory note to plaintiffs. The notice was returnable to the April term, 1858, and was served on Craig in March, of that year. The record also shows that the same notice was served on Bentley, in May, after-wards. Bentley made default.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Henry District Court. Tins action was commenced against James Craig and George W. Bentley, and claims that they were partners by th.e name and style of Craig & Bentley, and as such, with one Burris, made their promissory note to plaintiffs. The notice was returnable to the April term, 1858, and was served on Craig in March, of that year. The record also shows that the same notice was served on Bentley, in May, after-wards. Bentley made default. Craig answered, setting up, among other things, that the note sued on never was executed by the firm, or by any person authorized to…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
The error assigned is, that Bentley never was served, and that the court below had no jurisdiction over his person, so as to render judgment against him by default. Service upon Craig, (and this was unquestionably good), was a service upon the partnership ; and hence, sufficient as to each member of the firm. Code, section 1728. By this service, the'court obtained jurisdiction over Bentley, as well as Craig, and it was not lessened, or taken away, by the subsequent unnecessary reading of the same notice by the sheriff to Bentley.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brydolf v. Wolf, Carpenter & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Baxter, Reed & Co. v. C. W. Rollins & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Gregory, Tilton & Co. v. HarmonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Nixon v. Downey & WolvertonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875