In Rivers v. Mitchell, 57 Iowa 193, 194, cited in plaintiff's brief, it is to be noted in passing that the statute varies from our statute, in one respect at least, wherein it is provided that the petition be brought "to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant" and the person restrained is regarded as the applicant.
Summary of this case from Burdick v. BurdickDecided March 28, 1968
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
In Rivers v. Mitchell, 57 Iowa 193, 194, cited in plaintiff's brief, it is to be noted in passing that the statute varies from our statute, in one respect at least, wherein it is provided that the petition be brought "to the court or judge most convenient in point of distance to the applicant" and the person restrained is regarded as the applicant.
Summary of this case from Burdick v. BurdickFull title:PEOPLE v. RIVERS (MITCHELL)
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Date published: Mar 28, 1968
The whole force of the writ is spent upon the respondent.' And see United States v. Davis, Fed.Cas. No.…
Laffoon v. HaydenThe important question is, where is the power of control exercised? If by the respondent before the court, he…