Williams v. Walker

Supreme Court of Iowa

Williams v. Walker

11 Iowa 77

DecidedOctober 6, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Iowa 77 (Williams v. Walker) 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

Williams v. Walker, 11 Iowa 77 (iowa 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Wright, J.

Hamlin was not a party to the action. By [78]*78what 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

Wright, J.

Hamlin was not a party to the action. By [78]*78what 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Iowa 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-walker-iowa-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack