Williams v. Walker
11 Iowa 77
Opinion
Hamlin was not a party to the action. By [78] what authority he was permitted to interpose the motion to dissolve, does not appear. There are some affidavits tending to show that he owned the lands attached. Admitting that he was the owner, he would have no right upon that ground to be heard in this way. This is well settled in the cases of Loring v. Edes, 8 Iowa 427; Whipple v. Cass, Ib. 126; Phillip v. Shelton, 6 Ib. 545.
The order dissolving the attachment is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Williams v. Walker, 11 Iowa 77 (iowa 1860).
11 Iowa 77 (Williams v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Loving v. Edes
8 Iowa 427 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1859)