8. FORECLOSURE. The errors of law, only in a foreclosure proceeding, will be reviewed, on appeal, by the Supreme Court. Coe v. Winters, 482; Barney v. McCarty, 510; Docterman v. Webster, 522. 9. ADDITIONAL PLEADINGS ON APPEAL. The filing of further pleadings may be permitted, upon proper terms, by the District Court, in causes therein pending on appeal; and the Supreme Court will interfere with such an order only when it is clear that prejudice has resulted therefrom. Dunton v. Thorington et al., 217. ASSIGNMENT. See DECREE, 2 EVIDENCE, 6; PROMISSORY NOTE, 3–10. ATTACHMENT. 1. STATUTE CONSTRUED: DISCHARGE OF SOLDIER'S PROPERTY FROM LEVY. The first section of "an act to exempt the property of Iowa volunteers in the military service of the United States, from levy or sale" (chap. 113, Laws of 1862), does not apply to property levied upon by attachment. Hannahs v. Felt, 141; Ryan et ux. v. Wessels, 145. 2. POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO DIVEST ATTACHMENT. The current of authorities seem to hold that the levy of an attachment upon property creates a real lien, which can be divested only by a dissolution of the attachment; and that while the Legislature may suspend the sale of the same, it cannot discharge the lien absolutely. Id. ATTORNEY. 1. POWER TO BIND CLIENT. An attorney retained to secure the possession of real estate by legal proceedings, cannot bind his client by an agreement to pay the party in possession a sum of money in consideration of the surrender of the possession. Stuck et al. v. Reese, 122. BIILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 1. SHOULD BE DEFINITE. A bill of exception, which does not state the questions passed upon by the Court below, in a definite manner, raises no question for the consideration of the appellate court. Cousins v. Westcott, 253. 2. BY WHOM FILED. That a bill of exceptions was filed by the judge of the District Court, at his own instance, and not on the motion of either party, does not affect its conclusiveness as a part of the record. Shepherd v. Brenton, 84. 3. CONFUSED BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. The Supreme Court will not reverse the ruling of the Court below, when it is stated in a confused and indefinite manner in the bill of exceptions. Hunt & Co. v. Daniels & Co., 148. 4. INSTRUCTION AND EVIDENCE. Instructions based upon evidence will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court where the evidence is not set out in the record. (Cousins v. Westcott, 253; Barker v. Brown et al., 70; Harden v. Snyder, 461; Bennett v. Hyland, 597.) But the Supreme Court will review the ruling of the Court below, in giving or refusing to give instructions, when the record does not present all the evidence if it embraces sufficient to show the applicability of such instructions. (Stevenson v. Greenlee, 96.) And if prejudice has resulted from instructions given to the jury, which, under no supposable state of case would be good law, it is unnecessary to set out the evidence. Id. 5. CONFLICTING RECORD. When the entry made by the Clerk of the District Court, but not approved by the judge, conflicts with the statements of a bill of exceptions, signed by the judge, the bill of exceptions will be regarded as the better evidence of the facts to which it relates. Shepherd v. Brenton, 84. 6. REFERENCE TO EXHIBITS. A bill of exceptions stated that "thereupon plaintiff filed his certain motion, with affidavits attached, to set aside said verdict, which was considered and overruled." Held, that the reference to the affidavits was not unmistakable, and was not sufficient to make them a part of the record. Moffit v. Rodgers, 254. See NEW TRIAL, 13; PRACTICE, 10, 12, 14, 15. BOND. See APPEAL, 4; INJUNCTION, 2. CASES IN IOWA REPORTS, CITED, &c. 178 607 5 279 Abrams v. Foshee et ux. Slander. 370 497 Cavender v. The Heirs of Smith, 5 Iowa, 157. Acknowledgment. Reynolds, Ely & Co. v. Kinsbury et al., 238 Cole v. Dealham, 13 Iowa, 551, as to agreements, cited Day v. Griffith, 107 Cook, Sargent & Cook v. Sypher, 3 Iowa, 484. Shepherd v. Brenton... 90 Cook & Sargent v. Dillon et al., 9 Iowa, 407. Lien. Baldwin V. Thompson,. Cooper v. Sunderland, 3 Iowa, 114. Jurisdiction. Davenport Mutual Savings Fund and tion v. Schmidt,. Associa 509 216 251 176 474 Braddy & Braddy v. Lumery et al., 11 Iowa, 29. New Trial. Shepherd v. Brenton, 90 Brinton v. Seevers, 12 Iowa, 389. Ac- 239 90 251 Record index. Barney v. Little,.. 535 Campbell v. McHarg et al., 9 Iowa, 355. Usury. The Machinists' Bank v. Krum, 52; Switz v. Platts, 300; Nichols v. Levins,. Danforth, Davis & Co. v. Rupert et 255 344 Cary v. The Cincinnati and Chicago Ferrier v. Busick, 2 Iowa, 136. Parties. Casady v. Scallen, 95. Davis v. Bonar & Kearns, 175 Harmon v. Chandler, 3 Iowa, 564. Record. Pharo v. Johnson, Harrison v. Kramer et al., 3 Iowa, 543. Judgment lien. Bridgman & Co. v. McKissick and Bone,.. Harvey v. Irvin et al., 11 Iowa, 509. Agency. Wheelock v. Winslow,.. Heimstreet v. Winne et al., 10 Iowa City. Donnelly v. Rusch, Helfenstein & Gore v. Cave, 3 Iowa, 290. Construction of Proviso. Rice v. The City of Keokuk,.... Hendricks & Cooper v. Wallis, 7 Iowa, 224, cited. Shepherd v. Bren· ton... 561 Levi v. Karrick, 13 Iowa, 344. Accord. Hall v. Smith,.. 589 Lucas v. Hart, 5 Iowa, 415. Usury. 387 Miller v. Bradford, 12 Iowa, 14. Recording act. Barney v. Mc Carty, 515 Murray v. Catlett et al., 4 G. Greene, 108. Parties to foreclosure. Gifford v. Workman et al. 470 302 519 34 264 469 101 583 Newell v. Sandford, 10 Iowa, 396. New trial. Shepherd v. Brenton, 90 Norton, Jewett & Busby v. Williams, 9 Iowa, 529. Judgment liens. Wel ton v. Tizzard, Pace et al. v. Warner, 10 Iowa, 391. Practice. Denton v. Lewis, Patterson v. Linder et al, 14 Iowa, 414. Judgment lien. Welton v. Tizzard,. 8 497 303 497 90 561 90 292 Herring v. The State of Iowa, 1 Iowa Record. Pharo v. Johnson, Hollingsworth v. Swickard, 10 Iowa, 335. Usury. Greither v. Alexander, 476 Jessup et al. Trustees, v. Budge et al. Railroad mortgage. Dunham v. Isett... Jewett & Lovejoy v. Miller & Fuller, 12 Iowa. 85. New trial. Shepherd v. Brenton, Johnson v. Lyon et al., 14 Iowa, 481. Equitable interference with judg ment. Davenport Mutual Savings Fund and Loan Association v. Schmidt, Plummer v. Douglas and Watson, 14 Iowa, 69. Confession of judg ment. Daniels & Co v. Claflin,... 153 Pope & Slocum v. Jacobus et al., 10 Iowa, 262. Assignment of mortgage. Simmons v Johnson,.. Powell v. Hunt, 11 Iowa, 430. Usury. Greither v. Alexander, Porter et al. v. Green et al., 4 Iowa, 571 Mortgage lien. Welton v. Tizzard, 498; Barney v. McCarty,.... 514 Printz v. Cheeny & Street, 11 Iowa, 469. Self-crimination by a witness. The State of Iowa v. Duffy... Ring v. Ashworth et al., 3 Iowa, 352. Mistake. Gilpcke, Winslow & Co. v. Blake, 428 390 33 Kramer v. Rebman, 9 Iowa, 114. Mortgage redemption. Martin v. Jones, Robinson v. Chapline, 9 Iowa, 91. Contract. Baker v. Hall,. 279 Rock v. Wallace County Judge, 14 241 Lepage et al. v. McNamara, 5 Iowa, 124. Administrator. Iowa. County Bonds. Smith v. Henry County,... 387 Beezley v. Sabin & Moon v Harris, 12 Iowa, 87. Guaranty. Griffin v. Seymour,. Schricher v. Field et al., 9 Iowa, 366. Injunction. Taylor v. Deckinson,.. 487 33 Stoddard v. Hays et ux., 12 Iowa, 576. Mortgage redemption. Martin v. Jones and Hildebrand, Stokes et al. v. The County of Scott, 10 Iowa, 166. County bonds. Smith v. Henry County, Warner, Adm., v. Pace et al., 10 Iowa, 391. Practice. McCoy v. Julien, 375; Andrews v. Lockman, 607 Wheeler v Smith, 13 Iowa, 564. Record. Pharo v. Johnson, 561 241 387 Stratton v. Paul, 10 Iowa, 139. Instructions. Head & Metzgar v. Langworthy Bros, 236 241 402 Thatcher v. Haun et al, 12 Iowa, 303. Decree for possession. Martin v. Jones and Hildebrand,. The City of Dubuque v. Miller. 8 Iowa, 583. Mortgage. Middleton Savings Bank v. The City of Du buque. The Davenport Gas Light and Coke Company v. The City of Davenport, 13 Iowa, 229. Practice Childs v. Griswold, 441; Jack v. Naber, 453 The State of Iowa ex rel. The Bur lington and Missouri River Railroad Company v. The County of Wapello, 13 fowa, 388. Constitutional law Morrison v. Springer, 343 White v. Hampton et al., 13 Iowa, 259. Decree for possession. Martin v. Jones and Hildebrand, Wickersham v. Reeves & Miller, 1 Iowa, 413. Acknowledgment. Reynolds, Ely & Co. v. Kingsbury et al., Williams v. Donaldson, 8 Iowa, 108. Defense to promissory note. Gilpcke, Winslow & Co. v. Blake, Winter v. Hite, 3 Iowa, 142. Agency. Wheelock v. Winslow,..... Wolff and Hoppe v. Hagensick, 10 Iowa, 590. Verification. Wilson v. Preston, 241 239 393 469 247 Woodward v. Horst, 10 Iowa, 120 CONDITION PRECEDENT. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 303 1. CONTINUANCE LAW. A State Legislature may constitutionally enact a law which provides that if it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court that a defendant is in the actual military service of the United States, any action against him in the courts of such State shall stand continued during the period of his actual service. McCormack v. Rusch, 127. 2. SAME: GENERAL OPERATION. Such an act does not conflict with the provision of the State Constitution requiring "all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation." Id. 3. SAME: OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. Nor does it infringe § 10, art. 1, of the Federal Constitution, which prohibits any State from passing laws to impair the obligation of contracts. Id. 4. CONSTITUTION A RESTRICTION OF POWER. The Constitution, as applied to the legislative department of the government, is a restriction, and not a grant of power; and it is competent for the Legislature to prescribe the qualifications of electors, and the time, place and manner of exercising the elective franchise, when not expressly prohibited from so doing, or where the prohibition is not implied from some express provision of the Constitution. Morrison v. Springer, 304. 5. SAME: ARTICLE CONSTRUED. Section 1, article 2, of the Constitution of 1857, defines only the qualifications of an elector, and does not prescribe the place of exercising the elective franchise as a test of qualification. The power to fix the place and manner of its exercise is left with the Legislature. Id. 6. GENERAL RULE. The Supreme Court will declare a law unconstitutional only when it is clearly, palpably and plainly inconsistent with the provisions of that instrument. Id. See ELECTION, 1. CONSTRUCTION. 1. GRANT OF POWER. The intention of the donor in the grant of a power is the cardinal principal that governs in its construction; and this intention is to be ascertained primarily from the language employed and the object and purpose in view. Middleton Savings Bank v. The City of Dubuque, 394. 2. RETROSPECTIVE STATUTES. That a statute was designed to be retrospective in its operations will not be implied when it does not relate to subjects which would render such a construction necessary from considerations of public necessity. The general rule is, that whenever the intention to make it retrospective in its operation is not clearly expressed on its face, it will be construed to commence after its enactment. Bartruff v. Reemy, 257. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6; MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. CONTEMPT. 1. OBSTINATE WITNESS. A witness who is in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions propounded by the Grand Jury, is entitled, as of course, to a reasonable time before punishment in which to prepare and file an explanation of his conduct. Rev., 1860, § 2693. The State of Iowa v. Duffy, 426. CONTINUANCE. 1. MILITARY SERVICE. In an action against a copartnership, one partner filed an answer admitting a portion of the amount claimed, and denying the remainder, after which a motion was made for a continuance, under the provisions of section 1 of chap. 109, Laws of the Regular Session of 1862, on the ground that the partner not answering was in the military service of the United States. Held, 1. That the defendant in the military service was entitled to a continuance without any showing that his presence was necessary to a full and fair defense of the suit. |