In re the annexation of Kingston to the city of Cedar Rapids
This text of 32 Iowa 594 (In re the annexation of Kingston to the city of Cedar Rapids) 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 order of the court overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss, and the judgment granting the prayer of the petition for annexation, are assigned as errors. It is'. Insisted that the notice required by law in such cases does not appear to have been given, and that it is not shown that a majority of the electors consented, either by a vote or petition, to the annexation. But the abstract before us fails to disclose these alleged defects. Errors, as well as want of jurisdiction in the court, if either exist, must be made to appear affirmatively to authorize a reversal of the judgment of the court below. This is not done. The judgment of the circuit court is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
32 Iowa 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-annexation-of-kingston-to-the-city-of-cedar-rapids-iowa-1871.