Allman v. Gilbert

14 Iowa 538
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided April 13, 1863·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Wright, J.

Tbe principal question made by appellant in this case cannot be reviewed by us. He claims that tbe court erred in finding for plaintiff upon all tbe testimony admitted. Tbe cause was submitted to tbe judge without tbe intervention of a jury, but tbe facts were not found, nor the conclusions of law founded thereon. Nor was any motion made for a new trial. That appellant cannot, under such circumstances, ask a revision of tbe judgment, see Warner v. Pace, 10 Iowa, 391; Corner & Co. v. Gaston, Id., 512; Robison v. Saunders, McKibben & Co., infra; Byinyton v. Woodward & Warde, 9 Iowa, 360, and tbe cases there cited.

Tbe defendants A. Gilbert and Appelgate do not appeal. Whether they were properly served with notice of tbe pendency of tbe action, therefore, we need not determine. We remark, however, that if not served they made a voluntary appearance, and that cured all defects.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allman v. Gilbert, 14 Iowa 538 (iowa 1863).

14 Iowa 538 (Allman v. Gilbert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Marcum
62 N.W.2d 238 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)
Commercial National Bank Bluffs v. Gilinsky
120 N.W. 476 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)