Maish v. Littleton
This text of 17 N.W. 182 (Maish v. Littleton) 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 application for substitution was made under sections 2572, 2573 and 2574 of the Code.
The substitution asked for contemplated, of course, the discharge of Littleton. If he had become liable to the plaintiff, as the petition avers, the plaintiff had a claim against him which was in the nature of property. The discharge of Littleton would have had the effect to deprive the plaintiff of this property. He insists, therefore, that the statute providing for the substitution of the creditor and discharge of the officer is unconstitutional. The question raised was decided in Sunberg v. Babcock, Sheriff, 61 Iowa, 601. It was held in that case that the statutory provision for the substitution of the creditor and discharge of the officer was unconstitutional. Following that case, we have to say that the judgment of the circuit court must be
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 N.W. 182, 62 Iowa 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maish-v-littleton-iowa-1883.