62 Iowa 336 | Iowa | 1883
I. A constable lield five executions, issued upon as many judgments, against J. A. Baxter. Two of tbe judgments-
II. Tbe defendants in-tbe court below, by objection to tbe introduction of tbe notice and bond in evidence, and by instructions
Tbe purpose of the provision of tbe Code above cited requiring, upon notice in writing given by the claimant of property levied upon by execution, an idemnifying bond to be executed and returned with the execution, is tbe protection of
Tbe defendants, responding to tbe requirments of tbe law, upon the notice to tbe constable executed tbe bond, which
We are of the opinion that defendants are in no different or worse position than they would have been in bad there been a notice and bond for each execution, tbe bonds in that case being executed by all of tbe defendants. In an action on one of them, tbe plaintiff could have recovered the value of tbe property against all of tbe defendants, and, having so recovered, be could not recover upon the other bonds.
It cannot be said that there is a misjoinder of causes of action or of defendants. The defendants are bound by tbe
Tbe rulings of tbe court below upon tbe admission of testimony and upon tbe instructions are in barmony with tbe views we liave expressed.
III. After tbe evidence was submitted, tbe court, against defendants’ objection, directed and required tbe argument of
We have held that a judge may properly be absent during the progress of a trial. Hall v. Wolff et al., 61 Iowa, 559.
Tbe foregoing discussion disposes of all questions presented in argument by defendants’ counsel. In our opinion tbe judgment of tbe circuit court ought to be
Affirmed.