Grattan v. Matteson

2 N.W. 432, 51 Iowa 622
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedSeptember 19, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 2 N.W. 432 (Grattan v. Matteson) 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
Grattan v. Matteson, 2 N.W. 432, 51 Iowa 622 (iowa 1879).

Opinion

Day, J.

i jtjdsotjsht • cute“'wherí!io be brought. — Section 3396 of the Code provides: “When proceedings in a civil action or on a judgment or final order are sought to be enjoined, the suit must be brought in coimty and court in which such action is pending, or the judgment or order was obtained.” In Lockwood v. Kitteringham, 42 Iowa, 257, it -was said in substance that this section is not applicable where it is sought to enjoin the sale of property under a general execution, where it is alleged that the property does not belong to the defendant in execution, but to a third person who seeks the injunction. This question was not involved in that case, and what was there said concerning it is obiter. This dictum, if it should be conceded to present a correct statement of the law, is not applicable to the case at bar. In this -.case it is conceded that the property in question was, at the time of the rendition of the judgment sought tobe enjoined, the property of the judgment defendant; ■ and the injxmction is sought, not upon the ground that the property is not liable for the satisfaction of the judgment, if valid, but solely upon the ground that the judgment is void, and, for that reason, no lien upon the property. It is plain that this proceeding does not involve the question of the ownership of the property at -the date of [625]*625tlie rendition of the judgment, but the validity of the judgment itself. It is claimed’ that section 3396 is not applicable because it is alleged that the judgment in question is void, and hence no judgment. But it can be determined that the judgment is void only by judicial investigation. In form there is a judgment in the Winneshiek Circuit Court against John and Alexander Lawrence, which is a lien upon the property in controversy. In Anderson v. Hall, 48 Iowa 346, this section was applied to a proceeding to enjoin an execution issued upon a judgment alleged to be void. That case is decisive of this.

The conclusion which we have reached renders a determination of the other questions presented unnecessary if not improper.

Reversed.

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

Related

Gunn v. Wagner
48 N.W.2d 292 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1951)
Educational Film Exchanges of Iowa, Inc. v. Hansen
266 N.W. 487 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1936)
Keeling v. Priebe
257 N.W. 199 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1934)
Bankers Trust Co. v. Scott
246 N.W. 836 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1933)
Ferris v. Grimes
215 N.W. 646 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.
126 N.E. 223 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Ferguson v. Fain
142 S.W. 1184 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1911)
State v. Hindman
65 N.E. 911 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1903)
Hawkeye Insurance v. Huston
89 N.W. 29 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1902)
Garlock v. Calkins
84 N.W. 393 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Little Rock Junction Ry. v. Burke
66 F. 83 (Eighth Circuit, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 N.W. 432, 51 Iowa 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grattan-v-matteson-iowa-1879.