Robison v. Saunders, Kibben & Co.

14 Iowa 539
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedApril 13, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 14 Iowa 539 (Robison v. Saunders, Kibben & Co.) 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
Robison v. Saunders, Kibben & Co., 14 Iowa 539 (iowa 1863).

Opinion

"Wright, J.

Plaintiff obtained judgment against one Tiffany. Upoil an execution issued thereon he garnisheed the defendants, Saunders, Kibben & Co. The garnishees answered, showing that there was a certain amount of money in their hands, deposited by and in the name of the execution defendant, P. C. Tiffany. E. C. Tiffany and others sought to intervene, and claim the sum thus deposited as theirs, and not subject to the execution. They filed petitions to this effect on the 13th of March, 1863, which, however, were not attached to the papers noted on the appearance calendar, nor was any memorandum thereof made on the judge’s docket at the time of the judgment hereinafter mentioned. No leave was asked by these parties to intervene, nor does it appear that plaintiff or the garnishees had any notice of them, except the claimed constructive one arising from their filing. No answer was made to these petitions, but on the next day the court, without apparently considering or giving any attention to them, rendered judgment against the garnishees. The parties thus claiming the money, as intervenors, appeal.

Waiving the inquiry, whether appellants ever had such a standing in the court below as to entitle them to appeal and be heard in this, we remark that they should at least have done something more before asking us to review this judgment. No exceptions were taken, nor was any motion made to set aside or correct the order made, and following [541]*541what we regard the spirit and true meaning of §§ 3106, 3108, and § 3545, we hold that the record presents no question for our review. Appellants should have excepted to the ruling made, or asked its correction by proper motion in the court below. As sustaining this view, see Perkins v. Whittam et al., infra; Thomas v. East & McBee, infra : Pigman v. Denney, 12 Iowa, 396; McKinley v. Betchtel, Id., 561; Pawning v. Harman, 13 Id., 525.

Affirmed,

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

Related

Chicago, B. Q.R. Co. v. Board
221 N.W. 223 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Board of Supervisors
206 Iowa 487 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Belknap v. Belknap
134 N.W. 734 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Borgalthous v. Farmers & Merchants' Ins.
36 Iowa 250 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1873)
Eason v. Gester
31 Iowa 475 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1871)
Carleton v. Byington
17 Iowa 579 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Iowa 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robison-v-saunders-kibben-co-iowa-1863.