Citation Numbers: 65 Iowa 129
Judges: Seevers
Filed Date: 12/2/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
It is said the court erred in refusing an
It is said the court erred in overruling the motion, and in ordering the property attached to be sold. But counsel have failed to state any sufficient reason why this should be done, after the j ury had found that the property was not exempt. The plaintiff was a surety on a note for the defendant. The former purchased the note, and this note is one of the causes of action for which judgment was rendered. It is said that no recovery should have been permitted on the note, because the plaintiff’, cannot maintain an action thereon, but only on the implied promise to reimburse the plaintiff, if he was compelled to pay the note. We do not feel called on to determine this question, because no such error has been assigned. The judgment of the district court must be
Affirmed.