In re the annexation of Kingston to the city of Cedar Rapids

32 Iowa 594
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 10, 1871·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Beck, J.

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

In re the annexation of Kingston to the city of Cedar Rapids, 32 Iowa 594 (iowa 1871).

32 Iowa 594 (In re the annexation of Kingston to the city of Cedar Rapids) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kern v. Sanborn
7 N.W.2d 801 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1943)