Mitchell v. Harcourt
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Pottawattamie OLouit Coivrt. Action on promissory notes. An attachment was sued out. Tbe defenses were that there was no consideration for the notes and that they were usurious. A counter-claim was pleaded, claiming damages on the ground that the attachment had been wrongfully and maliciously sued out. Trial before a jury, verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
-I. The grounds upon which the attachment *350was sued out were, that one of the defendants was about to convert a part of bis property into money for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of his creditors, and that one of the defendants was about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. The only property attached consisted of real estate. Against the objection of the plaintiff, the defendants were permitted to show that their credit had been injuriously affected by the attachment.
The admission of this evidence constitutes error. Lowenstein v. Monroe, 55 Iowa, 82. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lowenstein v. MonroeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Shellito v. SampsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
3Cited by13 opinions
- Dorr Cattle Co. v. Des Moines National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Jacobs v. City of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Porter v. MolesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- American Express Co. v. Des Moines National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Hayes v. Union Mercantile Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1902
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.