Brunson v. Nichols, Shepard & Co.

34 N.W. 289, 72 Iowa 763
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedOctober 7, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 289 (Brunson v. Nichols, Shepard & Co.) 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
Brunson v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., 34 N.W. 289, 72 Iowa 763 (iowa 1887).

Opinion

Seevers, J.

-I. Two grounds of the motion to set aside the default are the same as in Gross v. Nichols, Shepard & Co., ante, p. 239, and the facts upon which the motion is based are also substantially the same. There[764]*764fore ifc must follow that the court did not err in overruling the motion on the first two grounds stated therein.

II. A third ground is that the judgment or decree is in the alternative, and therefore null and void. It does not follow because the judgment is of the character stated that it is void. At most it is probably erroneous only, or, if void, it cannot be enforced. But, be this as it may, as there was service of notice on the defendant, and the court had jurisdiction of it and the subject-matter, the default cannot be set aside, for the reason that the defendant did not file an answer and affidavit of merits. (Code, § 2871.)

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Worth v. Wetmore
54 N.W. 56 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.W. 289, 72 Iowa 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brunson-v-nichols-shepard-co-iowa-1887.