Case Name: Courtright v. The Singer Manufacturing Company
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1889-05-11
Citations: 77 Iowa 317
Docket Number: 
Parties: Courtright v. The Singer Manufacturing Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Courtright v. The Singer Manufacturing Company.
1. Appeal: less than $100: when certificate must be signed. Where a motion for a new trial was ruled upon at ten o’clock a. m., and a request was then made for á certificate for an appeal, but the certificate was not signed by the judge until three o’clock p. m. of the same day, held that it was not too late.
2. Attachment; judgment by default : action on bond for wrongful SUING out. A judgment by default for plaintiff in an attachment case, upon personal notice to defendant, is not necessarily a bar to a subsequent action on the attachment bond for the wrongful suing out of the writ. It depends upon the grounds upon which it is claimed the attachment was wrongful.
Appeal from Keolculc Superior Court. — Hon. Henry Bank, Jr., Judge.
Filed, May 11, 1889.
Craig, McCrary & Craig, for appellant.
W. J. Roberts, for appellee.

Opinion:
Given, C. J.
I. This case comes before this court on certificate of the ]udge trying the same. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, because the certificate was not signed at the time of the overruling of the motion for new trial. The certificate shows that the motion was ruled on at ten a. m., when a request was made for a certificate, and that the certificate was signed by the judge at three p. m. of the same day. This is within the rule as several times announced by this court. Fallon v. District Tp. of Johnson, 51 Iowa, 206.
II. The judge certifies the following question for the opinion of this court: "Is the trial and determination of an attachment suit in favor plaintiff, upon personal service upon defendant of the pendency of said cause, and in which no defense is made, a good defense as a plea in bar to suit subsequently instituted by the defendant in the attachment suit for' damages for the wrongful suing out of attachment and malicious use of process ? ' ' The answer depends upon the grounds upon which it is claimed in this action the attachment was wrongfully sued out. As that does not appear in •the certificate, we are not able to say from the matter certified whether the plea in bar was well pleaded or not.
Affirmed.