Turner v. Maddox

Supreme Court of Iowa

Turner v. Maddox

6 Iowa 489, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 122

DecidedOctober 13, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Iowa 489 (Turner v. Maddox) 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

Turner v. Maddox, 6 Iowa 489, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 122 (iowa 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.

— That the plaintiff should be heard upon the question of residence, and be permitted to show that he has commenced his action in the proper county, we think manifest. It is not an ex parte question. The proper manner of presenting evidence on a motion, is by affidavits, but it -would be discretionary with the court to receive it orally. It does not appear, however, in what manner evidence was offered, farther than the affidavit of plaintiff, and the manner of adducing it is not made the question. The main point is, whether the court should have heard the plaintiff, and we are of the opinion that it should, and that in not doing so, there was error. As to the amount allowed, there are no facts before this court upon which to adjudicate; and if we assume that there were none before the district court, still we should not be disposed to disturb the order.

The judgment for a change of venue is reversed, and the district court is directed to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

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

Woodward, J.

— That the plaintiff should be heard upon the question of residence, and be permitted to show that he has commenced his action in the proper county, we think manifest. It is not an ex parte question. The proper manner of presenting evidence on a motion, is by affidavits, but it -would be discretionary with the court to receive it orally. It does not appear, however, in what manner evidence was offered, farther than the affidavit of plaintiff, and the manner of adducing it is not made the question. The main point is, whether the court should have heard the plaintiff, and we are of the opinion that it should, and that in not doing so, there was error. As to the amount allowed, there are no facts before this court upon which to adjudicate; and if we assume that there were none before the district court, still we should not be disposed to disturb the order.

The judgment for a change of venue is reversed, and the district court is directed to proceed in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Iowa 489, 1858 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-maddox-iowa-1858.