Vark v. Dam
This text of 14 Iowa 232 (Vark v. Dam) 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
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Iowa 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vark-v-dam-iowa-1862.