Legal Opinion

Hurlbut, Hess & Co. v. Hardenbrook

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 25, 1882PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from Audubon District Court. — Hon. N. W. Macy, Judge. . The facts are stated in the .opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtKinne, J.

This is an action on an account, and also on certain notes against the defendant, in which an attachment was issued, and a levy made on the defendant’s stock of goods and building in-which they were situated. The notes were not due when the suit was commenced. The grounds alleged for an attachment were as follows: “That defendant is about to remove from the state, and refuses to make any arrangement for securing the payment of said notes when they fall due, which contemplated removal was not known to the plaintiff herein at the time said debt was contracted, or at the time said notes were…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nordhaus v. Peterson Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1880

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Amos v. Prom, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1953
  2. Union Mill Co. v. PrenzlerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  3. Ahrens v. FentonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
  4. Henderson v. ColemanWyoming Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Tank v. RohwederSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API