Finn & Co. v. Rose

12 Iowa 565
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 3, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 12 Iowa 565 (Finn & Co. v. Rose) 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
Finn & Co. v. Rose, 12 Iowa 565 (iowa 1862).

Opinion

Wright, J.

The deputy of the clerk of the District Court has power to administer oaths. Wood v. Bailey, ante p. 46. And it is not necessary that the absence or inability of the principal should be stated. The District Court knows its own clerk and his deputy, and it is not necessary [567]*567that bis signature to a jurat (accompanying a petition for an attachment,) should be authenticated by his official seal. The deputy may approve the bond for an attachment, and issue the writ. Code 1851, § 412.

The petition in this case charges that plaintiffs sold to Rose, the husband, one cook-stove and fixtures, tea cups, &c.; that said goods were purchased by the husband for the use of the family; that the same were so used and that the expense thereof was a family expense. The husband and wife were sued, and she demurred to the petition, which was overruled. The point made is that the contract did not relate to her separate property, nor to the expense of the family, within the meaning of § 1455 of the Code. This section reads thus: “ The expenses of the family, the education of the children, and such other obligations as come within the equity of this provision, are chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife or either of them, and in relation thereto they may be sued jointly, or the husband separately.” Under this section we think the action was maintainable. And see Rodemeyer v. Rodman, 5 Iowa 426. The articles mentioned come properly under the head of “ family expenses.” A cook-stove and fixtures, when purchased for that use and used in the house, as properly c.ome within the meaning of the statute as clothing, food, or medicine.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ames Evening Times v. Ames Weekly Tribune
183 Iowa 1188 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
McDaniels v. McClure
120 N.W. 1031 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Meldrum v. United States
151 F. 177 (Ninth Circuit, 1907)
Wheelock v. Hull
100 N.W. 863 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Neasham v. McNair
38 L.R.A. 847 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)
Hudson v. King Bros.
23 Ill. App. 118 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1887)
Von Platen v. Krueger
11 Ill. App. 627 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1882)
Moore v. McKinley
60 Iowa 367 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1882)
McCormick v. Muth
49 Iowa 536 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1878)
Smedley v. Felt
41 Iowa 588 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1875)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Iowa 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finn-co-v-rose-iowa-1862.