Court Opinion

ID: 9691016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:02:00.419541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:09.112029
License: Public Domain

Peterson, J.
(joining in dissent) — In connection with joining in the dissent of Justice Smith, I desire to add a brief statement. Apparently the principal Iowa case on which the majority bases its reversal is In re Estate of Hoyt, 246 Iowa 292, 298, 67 N.W.2d 528, 532. I differ with the majority that affirmance of this case will reverse the pronouncement in the Hoyt case as to oaths or jurats. All documents as to condemnation are records in the sheriff’s office. As a part of the procedure in this case each commissioner signed at the request of the sheriff, and in his presence, a written statement that: “We_ do each of us solemnly swear [emphasis added] * * The sheriff failed to sign the jurat. The record is undisputed they signed an oath to properly perform their duties. They entered upon their duties under the oath. Their duties were properly performed. The condemnee was not in any manner prejudiced by the failure of the sheriff to perform the administrative function of attaching his name to the oath.
In the Hoyt case, Russell signed no oath comparable to the commissioners’ oath. The opinion states: “* * * there is no showing it was made before any person authorized to take or administer oaths, or, for that matter, before anyone.” The facts are so different that, in my opinion, we do not need to overrule the Hoyt case, in order to affirm this ease.
I support Justice Smith’s dissent.