Brace v. Grady

36 Iowa 352
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedApril 23, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 36 Iowa 352 (Brace v. Grady) 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
Brace v. Grady, 36 Iowa 352 (iowa 1873).

Opinion

Peck, Oh. J.

— I. Without determining that the petition is not sufficient to authorize an attachment enforcing the landlord’s lien under chapter 99 of the Revision, we are of the opinion that it is sufficient to support an action under chapter 12é. Under the last-named chapter, attachments may be issiied “ previous to the time when the debt becomes due, when nothing but time is wanting to fix an absolute indebtedness, [354]*354and when the petition, in addition to that fact, states that the defendant is about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors.” § 3178. The petition substantially complies with this requirement. The debt described in the petition was due at the time judgment was rendered upon the demurrer; the judgment is therefore authorizedby sections 3179, 3180. In our opinion, the circuit court rightly held that the action was prosecuted under the general attachment law. Rev., chap. 124.

II. The facts that no bond was filed, that the writ of attachment directed the seizure of specified property, and that the relief asked in the petition is for the enforcement of the landlord’s lien, do not constitute objections that may be considered upon demurrer. The proceedings should have been assailed for these matters in a different manner. Rev., § 2876.

III. The court had authority to set aside its order sustaining the first demurrer upon discovering its mistake or error. The record is under the court’s control, and an entry, for a sufficient reason, máy be expunged before it is signed or during the term at which it is made. Rev., § 2666.

The. discovery, by the court, of an error or mistake in a former ruling is certainly good cause for setting aside or expunging the record thereof.

In our opinion the record before us discloses no error.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Denman v. Sawyer
232 N.W. 819 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Partch v. Boyle
197 Iowa 1314 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
Loos v. Callender Savings Bank
174 Iowa 577 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Willson v. District Court of Polk County
166 Iowa 352 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Todhunter v. De Graff
146 N.W. 66 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Acheson v. Inglis Bros.
135 N.W. 632 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Bottineau Land & Loan Co. v. Hintze
125 N.W. 842 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
McConnell v. Avey
90 N.W. 604 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Brown v. Cairns
77 N.W. 478 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Hawkeye Ins. v. Duffie
25 N.W. 117 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1885)
Wolmerstadt v. Jacobs
16 N.W. 217 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 Iowa 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brace-v-grady-iowa-1873.