safe rule in Iowa

1956Co. v. Burrhus, 135 Iowa 324, 327 , 112 N.W. 765, 766 , this court gave consideration to the matter of substituted service and stated: “The method of procedure is extraordinary in character, and allowable only because specifically authorized; and, in common with other legislative acts which mark a departure from the ordinary, the provisions must be strictly construed in the sense, at least, that the operation thereof may not be abridged or extended by the courts.” The plaintiff has cited Bascom v. District Court, 231 Iowa 360 , 1 N.W.2d 220 , wherein we held a venue statute should be construed

1956Co. v. Burrhus, 135 Iowa 324, 327 , 112 N.W. 765, 766 , this court gave consideration to the matter of substituted service and stated: “The method of procedure is extraordinary in character, and allowable only because specifically authorized; and, in common with other legislative acts which mark a departure from the ordinary, the provisions must be strictly construed in the sense, at least, that the operation thereof may not be abridged or extended by the courts.” The plaintiff has cited Bascom v. District Court, 231 Iowa 360 , 1 N.W.2d 220 , wherein we held a venue statute should be construed

2021McCleary, 54 Iowa at 315 , 6 N.W. at 572–73 (quoting Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78, 107 (1874)).

2021McCleary, 54 Iowa at 315 , 6 N.W. at 572–73 (quoting Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29 Mich. 78, 107 (1874)).

1956Co. v. Burrhus, 135 Iowa 324, 327 , 112 N.W. 765, 766 , this court gave consideration to the matter of substituted service and stated: “The method of procedure is extraordinary in character, and allowable only because specifically authorized; and, in common with other legislative acts which mark a departure from the ordinary, the provisions must be strictly construed in the sense, at least, that the operation thereof may not be abridged or extended by the courts.” The plaintiff has cited Bascom v. District Court, 231 Iowa 360 , 1 N.W.2d 220 , wherein we held a venue statute should be construed

1956Co. v. Burrhus, 135 Iowa 324, 327 , 112 N.W. 765, 766 , this court gave consideration to the matter of substituted service and stated: “The method of procedure is extraordinary in character, and allowable only because specifically authorized; and, in common with other legislative acts which mark a departure from the ordinary, the provisions must be strictly construed in the sense, at least, that the operation thereof may not be abridged or extended by the courts.” The plaintiff has cited Bascom v. District Court, 231 Iowa 360 , 1 N.W.2d 220 , wherein we held a venue statute should be construed

1951The only safe rule, in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the process, is to require a strict observance of the statute." In Boals v. Shules, 29 Iowa 507 , it appeared that the court term began on Monday, April 18, 1870 and the service of notice on the defendant was regular and sufficient for this term except that the notice required the defendants to appear "on or before noon of the second day of the April term of the district court, to begin on the 12th day of April, 1870." The opinion holds the notice was insufficient; that defendants' failure to appear on the 2nd day of the April term d

1951The only safe rule, in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the process, is to require a strict observance of 1ho statute.” In Boats v. Shules, 29 Iowa 507 , it appeared that the court term began on Monday, April 18, 1870, and the service of notice on the defendant was regular and sufficient for this term except that the notice required the defendants to appear “ ‘on or before noon of the second day of the April term of the district court, to begin on the 12th day of April, 1870.’ ” The opinion holds the notice was insufficient; that defendants’ failure to appear on the second day of the Apri

1940But it is argued by defendants that this is a ‘matter arising ex contractu, and, even though it be infected with fraud, it cannot be changed into a tort in order to charge the infant by a change of remedy. ’ In a case like the present one it is said a safe test to apply is: ‘ Can the infant be held liable without directly or indirectly enforcing his promise?’ Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472 ( 9 N. E. 420 , 58 Am.

1940But it is argued by defendants that this is a ‘matter arising ex contractu, and, even though it be infected with fraud, it cannot be changed into a tort in order to charge the infant by a change of remedy. ’ In a case like the present one it is said a safe test to apply is: ‘ Can the infant be held liable without directly or indirectly enforcing his promise?’ Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472 ( 9 N. E. 420 , 58 Am.

1930It appears to me, therefore, to be a safe rule, founded in the principles of the common law, that the general ivords of a statute ought not to include the government, or affect its rights, unless that construction be clear and indisputable upon the text of the act.’ ” See, also, In re Tidewater Coal Exchange, 280 Fed. 648 .

1930In LaCock v. City of Schenectady, 224 App. Div. 512 ( 231 N. Y.

1930In LaCock v. City of Schenectady, 224 App. Div. 512 ( 231 N. Y.

1917If a portion of the facts are to be eliminated, the witness, and not the jury, should be permitted to estimate the difference this change would effect in the-opinion he has expressed.” And in Ball v. Skinner, 134 Iowa, at 310 , it was held that the materiality of the facts is a matter for the court alone, and the jury is bound to assume that any fact or circumstance allowed in evidence by the trial court is material and entitled to consideration.

1913Human experience has demonstrated this is the only safe rule, founded, as it is, in that profound knowledge of the human heart which dictated that hallowed petition, “Lead me not into temptation but deliver me from evil, ’ ’ and that occasioned the announcement of the infallible truth that “ a man cannot serve two masters.” Casady v. Carraher, 119 Iowa, 500 .

1880The only safe rule of decision is to hold, as I understand the common law for ages to have been, that a condition or restriction, which would suspend all power of alienation for a single day, is inconsistent with the estate granted, unreasonable and void.” Eor another case containing a most exhaustive Consideration of this question, see DePeyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y., 467 .

1869This court has heretofore held that “the only safe rule in cases where jurisdiction depends upon the process is to require a strict observance of the statute.” Farris v. Powell et al., 10 Iowa, 553 ; Hodges v. Brett, 4 G.