Vark v. Dam

14 Iowa 232
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided December 6, 1862·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, C. J.

Tbe original notice, served upon tbe defendant, was clearly defective in not stating tbe term at wbicb be was required to appear. See Code, § 2812; Branch State Bank v. Van et al., 12 Iowa, 523.

Tbe record, however, shows that when tbe cause was submitted, tbe defendant appeared by bis attorney, but failed to file an answer, and judgment was rendered by default. This appearance waived tbe defective service.

Again, tbe defendant, under tbe provision of § 3548 .of tbe Revision, should have moved for tbe correction of this error in tbe District Court. See Pigman v. Denney, 12 Iowa, 396; McKinley v. Betchtell, Id., 561; Bethel v. Leay, infra.

Affirmed.

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

Vark v. Dam, 14 Iowa 232 (iowa 1862).

14 Iowa 232 (Vark v. Dam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krueger v. Lynch
48 N.W.2d 266 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1951)
Swan v. McGowan
231 N.W. 440 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Belknap v. Belknap
134 N.W. 734 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
State v. Pennyman
26 N.W. 82 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1885)