62 Iowa 212 | Iowa | 1883
I. The petition is in three counts. The first seeks to recover for the wrongful conversion of a stock of goods, and notes and accounts. The second count alleges that plaintiff executed a bill of sale upon certain merchandise and notes and accounts, upon an agreement that defendant
The defendant denies the allegations of the petition, and avers that the goods were transferred to him under an absolute sale by plaintiff, which was witnessed by the bill of sale referred to in the petition. Defendant also sets up a counterclaim based upon a promissory note and an account.
II. The plaintiff testified to the contract, as set up in the second count of the petition, and that it was agreed that the
III. The defendant proposed to prove that the land deeded by defendant to plaintiff’s wife had been attached in .actions
IY. The defendant complains of the ruling of the circuit court in giving and refusing instructions. Rut the abstract
Y. The motion for a new trial was not made within the time prescribed by Code, § 2838. The verdict was rendered
If the court, after the adjournment and before the fifth of July, was in term, the motion was not in time, for more than three days intervened, excluding the Sunday and election day, which defendant thinks ought not to be counted — a question we do not determine. If the court was not in term during the recess, then the motion was too late, for it must be made at the term of the decision.
The motion for a new trial, not having been made in time, was correctly overruled. We can consider no questions raised in it.
Plaintiff files an amended abstract, which is denied by defendant, thus putting in issue the correctness of the original abstract. We find it unnecessary to determine the issues thus raised, as, upon the abstract filed by defendant, the judgment of the circuit court cannot be disturbed.
Affirmed.