Botna Valley State Bank v. Cary

218 N.W. 926, 205 Iowa 913
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedApril 3, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 218 N.W. 926 (Botna Valley State Bank v. Cary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Botna Valley State Bank v. Cary, 218 N.W. 926, 205 Iowa 913 (iowa 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— The judgment in this casé was entered September 16, 1927. The appeal was perfected October 18, 1927. The abstract was filed in this court February 23, 1928. A motion is filed to affirm or dismiss on the ground that the abstract was not filed in time.

The statute, Section 12848, Code of 1927, provides that, if the abstract is not filed within 120 days after the appeal is taken and perfected, unless further time is fixed by the court or judge, upon a proper showing the appeal “upon motion shall be dismissed, or the judgment or order affirmed.” When the time is computed, under the statute, it appears that the abstract was not filed in this court within 120 days after the appeal was taken and perfected.

The appellant contends that this provision of the statute is not applicable, by reason of the fact that the attorney for the appellees accepted “due, legal, and timely service” of the abstract. This acceptance was not until after the 120 days had run; but the appellant contends that by such acceptance of service and the use of the word “timely” the provisions of the statute regarding the filing of the abstract are obviated.

Such is not the case. The statute provides for the filing of the abstract within 120 days, not for the service of the abstract. Even if the service of the abstract may be regarded as “timely,” the filing was not, and the matter of filing is controlled by the statute. The only way that the express provisions of the statute requiring the filing of the abstract to be within 120 days can be avoided is by procuring an extension of time from this court, or a judge thereof. This not having been done, the motion to dismiss must be, and it is, sustained. — Motion to dismiss sustamed.

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

Related

In Re the Estate of Miguet
185 N.W.2d 508 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971)
In Re Rahfeldt's Estate
111 N.W.2d 303 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1961)
Pringle v. Houghton
88 N.W.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1958)
McCulloch's Estate v. Conrad
52 N.W.2d 67 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1952)
Wright v. Copeland
41 N.W.2d 102 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1950)
Henkel v. Auchstetter
39 N.W.2d 650 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1949)
City National Bank v. Organ
38 N.W.2d 100 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1949)
Boiler v. Wilson
34 N.W.2d 578 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1948)
American Bible Society v. Cameron
30 N.W.2d 164 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1947)
Stolar v. Turner
19 N.W.2d 585 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1945)
In Re Estate of Ferris
14 N.W.2d 889 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
Miller v. Economy Hog & Cattle Powder Co.
4 N.W.2d 379 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
Reichard v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
1 N.W.2d 721 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
Catlin v. Edwards
300 N.W. 673 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
Shoberg v. Rock
298 N.W. 838 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
Herrold v. Herrold
285 N.W. 274 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1939)
In Re Estate of Allis
267 N.W. 683 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1936)
In Re Estate of Thomas
261 N.W. 622 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Coggon State Bank v. Woods
238 N.W. 448 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Warfield v. Bixby
51 F.2d 210 (Eighth Circuit, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
218 N.W. 926, 205 Iowa 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botna-valley-state-bank-v-cary-iowa-1928.