Goddard v. Cunningham
This text of 6 Iowa 400 (Goddard v. Cunningham) 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.
Opinion
— The motion to dissolve the attachment was properly overruled. In the absence of any showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that it appeared to the district court that the attorney had authority to sign the name of his client to the attachment bond.
. After judgment by default, the defendant may appear at the time of the assessment of damages, and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, but for no other purpose. Code, section 1831. The plaintiff being in possession of the note sued on, and being the payee therein, will be presumed to be rightfully in possession of it, and the assignment on the back will be taken to. have been erased by due authority. Gordon v. Pitt, 3 Iowa, 390; Cook & Owsley v. Walters, 4 Ib., 72.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Iowa 400, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goddard-v-cunningham-iowa-1858.