Gilmore & Smith v. Ferguson & Cassell

28 Iowa 422
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 12, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 Iowa 422 (Gilmore & Smith v. Ferguson & Cassell) 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
Gilmore & Smith v. Ferguson & Cassell, 28 Iowa 422 (iowa 1869).

Opinion

Cole, Ch. J.

This cause was decided and opinion filed at the last Dubuque Tei*m. At this term, and before any judgment had been rendered, the appellants having given due notice to the opposite party, now appear and move the court to render judgment in their favor, upon the special verdict of the jury.

Upon the trial of the cause in the Distinct Court, the juiy, by consent of the parties, were required to make answers to certain questions in the nature of a special verdict, leaving the law aiising thereon to be determined [423]*423by the court. The jury returned such answers as a special verdict, and thereon the District Court held the contract usurious, and rendered judgment accordingly. This court, upon appeal, held the contract not usurious, and thereby reversed the judgment of the District Court; and the question presented by this motion is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment now in this court, or must the cause be remanded for a new trial \

It is provided by the Revision, section 3536: The Supreme Court may reverse or affirm the judgment or order below, or the part of either appealed from, or may render such judgment or order as the District Court or judge should have done, according as it may think proper.” Under this section, this court clearly has the power, the motion being made in proper time, to render such j udgment as the District Court should have rendered; and by the opinion heretofore filed it was shown that the District Court should have held the contract to be not usurious, and rendered judgment for plaintiffs for the amount due upon the contract, according to the special verdict. Such judgment will, therefore, be now rendered in this court. See Roberts, assignee, etc., v. Corbin & Co., ante, 354.

Motion granted.

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

Related

Lading v. City of Duluth
190 N.W. 981 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
In re the Insanity of Bresee
82 Iowa 573 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1891)
Wise v. Wilds
42 N.W. 553 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1889)
Cobb, Blasdel & Co. v. I. C. R. R.
38 Iowa 601 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Iowa 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-smith-v-ferguson-cassell-iowa-1869.