An agent who is left in charge of in his own name an action for the real property has not such interest possession therein as to enable him to maintain | Painter, 58-365. thereof: McHenry v. demurrer or in arrest of judgment: Miller v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 16 N. W. Rep., 567. ject to any counter-claim, though it be an independent cause of action, acquired by the maker of the note against the assignor before notice of | 906. SEC. 2547. Payment of a negotiable note to the payee, by the maker, without notice of a transfer made after maturity, is a defense to an action by an endorsee who takes by such transfer after maturity: Haywood v. Seeber, 61-574. 681. The grantor is not a necessary, conveyance of property and subject though a proper party defendant in it to payment of claims of creditors: an action to set aside a fraudulent | Potter v. Phillips, 44-353. SEC. 2548. Joint owners of a note should join | he should be made defendant: Mcas plaintiffs, or if one refuses to join | Namee v. Carpenter, 56–276. Where the action is against de- | lege either copartnership or corfendant by the name in which it signs porate capacity: Wendall v. Osborne, the contract, it is not necessary to al- | 18 N. W. Rep., 709. SEC. 2565. 685. Under a finding made by the court that the action was not being prosecuted for the benefit of the minor and that the further prosecution was not for his best interests, held, that the court was authorized to dimiss [20 G. A., ch. 126, amends this section by striking out the word "may in the third line thereof and inserting in its place the word "shall.” It also contains the following provision: This act shall not effect [affect] existing contracts."] such real property of the wife is situated, although neither husband nor wife be a resident of that county: Hawke v. Urban, 18-83. [Decisions under the original section.] Where the note secured by a mort- | gage is made payable at a particular place, action to foreclose the mortgage may be brought in the county in which the note is made payable, although the land mortgaged be situated in another county: Equitable Life Insurance Co. v. Gleason, 56-sonal judgment on the debt, but if 47. An action against husband and wife for indebtedness incurred for family expenses, and in which it is sought to make such indebtedness a lien upon real property of the wife, may be brought in the county where SEC. 2581. A mortgage may be foreclosed in any county in which the court can acquire jurisdiction to render a per the proceeding is upon publication only, and the defendant does not appear, the foreclosure cannot be had in a county where no portion of the property is situated: Iowa Loan and Trust Co. v. Dory, 19 N. W. Rep., 301. 688. An action upon service by publication to foreclose a mortgage cannot be brought in the county in which the note is made payable, if no por tion of the property is situated in that county: Iowa Loan and Trust Co. v. Dory, 19 N. W. Rep., 301. 689. SEC. 2582. Corporations operating railways | person resident within the state: within the state are subject to the jur- Mooney v. U. P. R. Co., 60–346. isdiction of our courts the same as any This section has no application to | county in which the property is sitan action for the recovery of specific uated: Porter v. Dalhoff, 59-459. personal property brought in the [20 G. A., ch. 94, amends this section by adding to subdivision 3 thereof the following:] But when either party files an affidavit as provided by this subdivision the other party shall have a reasonable time to file counter affidavits, and the court or judge, in the exercise of a sound discretion, must decide whether a change shall be granted, when fully advised, according to the very right and merits of the matter. The court may in its discretion cause the affiants upon either side to be brought into court for examination upon the matters contained in their said affidavits. [Decisions under the original section.] A court has no authority to change | held, that a change ordered in a case the venue of an action, on its own in which no application was made. motion, to another court. Therefore, was erroneous, although in another case between the same parties an application had been made, supported by affidavit, on the ground of prejudice of the judge: Bennett v. Carey, 57-221. A change of place of trial cannot be had while the case is pending on motion for new trial, after verdict: Perkins v. Jones, 55-211. Motion for change of venue on account of prejudice of the judge, if properly made in vacation, should be granted, even though the judge to whom objection is made is to go out of office before the next term of court. The change is not merely for purposes of trial, but where the objection is to the court, the statute contemplates that it may be had before the issues are made up and the case ready for trial: Allerton v. Eldridge, 56-709. A change of place of trial may be had as here provided, on an appeal to the circuit court in proceedings to assess damages for taking property for right of way: Whitney v. Atlantic Southern R'y Co., 53-651. The party by whom the principal affidavit is made cannot be compelled to submit to an examination as to the truth of the matters stated in his affidavit: McGovern v. Keokuk Lumber Co., 61-265. Where a cause is taken to another county by agreement that it shall be tried therein without further change, and subsequently additional parties are brought in, such stipulation does not prevent further change of trial according to law, even on the motion of one of the parties to the original agreement: Bixby v. Carskaddon, 18 N. W. Rep., 875. ing the motion, that is sufficient: Goodnow v. Litchfield, 19 N. W. Rep., 226. Where the affidavit for a change on the ground of undue influence of the adverse party or his attorney stated that "defendants and their attorney had such undue influence, held, that it was sufficient to authorize a change: Bixby v. Carskaddon, 18 N. W. Rep., 875. An application for change of venue on the ground of alleged prejudice of the inhabitants of a county must be sworn to by the party asking the change if he is a natural person: Hedge v. Gibson, 58-656. Where a change of venue is desired by a corporation, the requisite affidavit must be made by its officers or agents and, held, that an affidavit commencing I., A. B., Vice President of the defendant above named, being duly sworn," etc., and not otherwise showing that the affiant was vice president, was not sufficient for the reason that the connection of the affiant with the corporation was thus shown merely by an unverified statement: McGovern v. Keokuk Lumber Co., 61-265. The affidavits on file become part of the record and may be certified by the clerk on appeal in the same manner as other matters of record; it is not necessary that they be preserved by bill of exceptions: Ibid. An appeal will not lie from an order granting or refusing a change of venue, but upon a subsequent appeal properly taken, even from an intermediate order before final judg ment, the order as to change of venue may be reviewed: Allerton v. Eldridge, 56–709. In a suit against principal and sureties, where a ground for a change of place of trial is shown by the prin- By an appeal from an order grantcipal, the sureties, if they desire, maying a change of venue the supreme have the change granted as to them court acquires no jurisdiction, and also, if their ground of defense is the will refuse to consider the case even same as that of the principal: Sweet though objection to the jurisdiction r. Wright, 17 N. W. Rep., 468. is not made by either party: Groves v. Richmond, 58-54. If the motion is made by more than one party it must distinctly appear from the affidavit that neither one of the three disinterested persons subscribing thereto is related nearer than the fourth degree to either of the parties making the motion: Fairburn v. Goldsmith, 58339. The fact that a party, after properly excepting to the ruling granting a change of venue, goes to trial in the court to which the change is granted and does not raise an objection to the change by motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment, does not prevent his alleging it upon appeal: Michaels v. Crabtree, 59-615; Bennett v. Carey, 57–221. Where the affiants in their affidavit collectively declare that they are not related within the degree Where the supreme court on appeal herein specified to the one party mak-determines that a change of venue |