City of Burlington v. Cox

Supreme Court of Iowa

City of Burlington v. Cox

8 N.W. 360, 55 Iowa 752

DecidedMarch 25, 1881

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.W. 360 (City of Burlington v. Cox) 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

City of Burlington v. Cox, 8 N.W. 360, 55 Iowa 752 (iowa 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Day, J.

— It does not appear from the record that the court acquired any jurisdiction of the defendant Cox. Service was accepted by Trulock and Blake & Hammack, but it is not shown that they had any authority to accept service for Cox. Cox did not appear. The record does not recite that he was served with notice, nor was any default entered against him. The petition alleges that he has absconded for parts unknown, and that legal process cannot be served upon him. It is evident that no injunction could be decreed until it was judicially determined that Cox was indebted to the plaintiff, and this determination could not be made until the court acquired jurisdiction of Cox by proper service. This alone was sufficient to require the court to dissolve the injunction before granted. Whether it was proper for the court without having jurisdiction of Cox to determine that the intervenors have a lien for their services, is a question solely between the intervenors and Cox, and which does not concern the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiffs would have been entitled to an injunction, if jurisdiction over the proper parties had been obtained, we need not determine.

Arrirmed.

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

Day, J.

— It does not appear from the record that the court acquired any jurisdiction of the defendant Cox. Service was accepted by Trulock and Blake & Hammack, but it is not shown that they had any authority to accept service for Cox. Cox did not appear. The record does not recite that he was served with notice, nor was any default entered against him. The petition alleges that he has absconded for parts unknown, and that legal process cannot be served upon him. It is evident that no injunction could be decreed until it was judicially determined that Cox was indebted to the plaintiff, and this determination could not be made until the court acquired jurisdiction of Cox by proper service. This alone was sufficient to require the court to dissolve the injunction before granted. Whether it was proper for the court without having jurisdiction of Cox to determine that the intervenors have a lien for their services, is a question solely between the intervenors and Cox, and which does not concern the plaintiff. Whether the plaintiffs would have been entitled to an injunction, if jurisdiction over the proper parties had been obtained, we need not determine.

Arrirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.W. 360, 55 Iowa 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-burlington-v-cox-iowa-1881.