46 Iowa 544 | Iowa | 1877
II. The guarantors instituted a suit in attachment against the maker, after he had absconded and before the note became due. No judgment was taken in the attachment proceedings at first term. Appellant insists that he was prejudiced by this continuance of the cause, and that it was occasioned by the failure of plaintiff to deliver the original note to him to be ■used in evidence. Whatever effect this might have upon the rights of the parties, we think the evidence justified the court below in finding that there was no negligence in the plaintiff in this regard.
It appears that no demand for the note was made upon plaintiff until after the term of court was past. Judgment was taken at the succeeding term. We need not repeat the evidence.
Affirmed.