State Savings Bank v. Ratcliffe
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Estate of Dull (Iowa 1981)
- Rivers v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New York (Iowa 1942)
- Coggon State Bank v. Woods (Iowa 1931)
- Lednum v. Lednum (Colo. 1925)
- Long v. Sphaler (Fla. 1925)
- Cleophas v. Walker (Iowa 1930)
- Jensen v. Adlum (Iowa 1925)
- Pennypacker v. Floyd (Iowa 1919)
- Howe v. Sioux County (Iowa 1917)
- Bedford v. Board of Supervisors (Iowa 1913)
- Dowling v. Webster County (Iowa 1912)
- Lowery v. Lowery (Iowa 1908)
- Neeley v. Incorporated Town of Mapleton (Iowa 1908)
- Kvamme v. Barthell (Iowa 1908)
- Hoffman-Bruner Granite Co. v. Stark (Iowa 1906)
- First National Bank v. Stone (Iowa 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Notice of appeal, purporting to be duly signed, with acceptance of service thereon by attorneys for plaintiff, was duly filed with the clerk of the district court. The acceptance of service was within the time required by law, and on the face of it the notice is sufficient to give us jurisdiction. Some time-after the paper was filed plaintiff’s counsel moved for a correction thereof in the district court by striking out the names of defendants’ attorneys, purporting to be appended to the notice. A showing was made in support of this motion, from which the trial court found that the notice was not in fact signed when accepted by plaintiff’s counsel, and it made an order correcting the same accordingly. From this order an appeal was taken. There is no doubt that the evidence before the trial court fully justified the order correcting the notice. But it is said the court had no jurisdiction to correct it. Section 4127 of the Code seems to confer jurisdiction on the trial court to make such an order. No time is fixed by statute within which to- make application, and nothing but laches or equitable reasons will defeat it. Fisher v. Railway Co., 104 Iowa, 588; Risser v. Martin, 86 Iowa, 392. But it is said the court should have considered certain correspondence between the parties as constituting notice. If that be true, it gave no ground' for hold
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.