Seaton & Son v. Hamilton & Co.

10 Iowa 394
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedApril 18, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 10 Iowa 394 (Seaton & Son v. Hamilton & 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
Seaton & Son v. Hamilton & Co., 10 Iowa 394 (iowa 1860).

Opinion

Baldwih, J.

We think the District Court erred in rendering judgment against the garnishees, without any notice being served upon defendant, and also in proceeding against the garnishees. The clerk of the District Court of Boone county had no authority to issue an execution upon the transcript thus filed. It does not appear that the transcript was docketed and indexed as provided by law, and wo think that the law does not confer any power upon such clerk to issue an execution. He has no such authority unless it is expressly given to him by some statutory enactment. The only provisions of the legislature under which this authority can be claimed are embraced in chapter 181 of the Code.

The object of the provision of this chapter, is to give to the judgment plaintiff a lien upon any real estate of the defendant in the county where such transcript may be filed, and to operate as a notice to purchasers subsequent to the filing thereof. This chapter provides that judgments of the District Court, of the Supreme Court and of the District Court of the United States, become liens by the filing of copies thereof, as described in this chapter. The clerk shall docket and index the same as though the judgment had been rendered in this court.” The law does not declare that such filing, indexing and docketing shall have the effect of a judgment rendered, it merely becomes a lien. The judgment creditor has a full remedy by the statute which confers upon [396]*396him the right to issue an execution from the county where the judgment was rendered to any county in the State. If such authority is given by this provision as is claimed, the clerk has a right to issue an execution, upon a copy of the judgment of the District Court of the United States thus filed, as well as upon copies of the judgments of the State courts, which we think would not be insisted upon as correct by any one.

The clerk having no power to issue such execution, all of the proceedings thereunder were irregular and insufficient to give the court jurisdiction of this cause. The judgment against the garnishees is therefore reversed.

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

Related

Wyoming Central Irr. Co. v. LaPorte
188 P. 360 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1920)
Garnett v. Goldman
1913 OK 604 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Drahos v. Kopesky
109 N.W. 1021 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Brunk v. Moulton Bank
95 N.W. 238 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Murray v. Briggs
69 P. 765 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Lovelady v. Burgess
52 P. 25 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1898)
Bostwick v. Benedict
57 N.W. 78 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Furman v. Dewell
35 Iowa 170 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Iowa 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaton-son-v-hamilton-co-iowa-1860.