Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

66

66

Sec. 1923. Notice. Lufkin & Wilson 0.

Preston, 236; Nuckolls 0. Pence,

532.
1938. Mortgage. Mills v. Ileaton, 216.
1940. Vendor's lieu. Tinsley v. Tine-

ley, 16; Notch v. Hussey et al., 695.
1993. Homestead. Reynolds v. llorse

et al., 157; Whitcomb v. Whilcomb,

719.
“ 2007, 2008. Homestead. Burdick v.

l'ent et al., 585.
2013. Ront. Hills v. Heaton, 216.
2017. Rent. Martin v. Stearns et al.,

948.
2084.

Assigament. Melick v. The
First National Bank of Tama City

et al., 93.
2115, 2117. Assignment. Van Patton

O Juks v. Burr et al., 521.
2201. Marriage. Drummond v. Irish,

42.
2202, 2204, 2212, 2214. Husband and

wife. Russell v'. Long, 251,
5 2226. Divorce. Green 1. Green, 405.
2229. Jurisdiction. Shaw v. lcllen-

ry, 185.
2326. Will. In the latter of the Will

Of Rachel Ilutsc, 663.
2372.

Life Insurauce. Rhode v. Bank
et al., 376.

Dower. Felch o. Finch, 564.
2452. Dower. 18hlock v. Asllock et

al., 321.
2505. Action. Davidson v. Vorse, 388.
2510. Mechanic's lien. Spink 0. Mc-

Call, 436.
2517, Practice. Morris v. Merrill &

Co. et al., 501.
2529, 2530. Statute of limitations.

Beecher 0. The County of Clay et

al., 142.
2553. Partnership. Ayres 7. The C.

R.I.P.R. Co., 401.
2630 2634. Joinder. Wilson & Co. v.

Buker et al., 424.
46 2618. Practice, Velick v. The First

National Bank of Tama City et
al., 95; Bunt v. Rheum, 622.
2650. Pleading. The Dixírict Town-

ship ojo Coon v. The Board of Di-
rectors of the District Township of

Providence et al., 289.
2589. Pleading. Clow v. Jurphy, 696.
2693. Evidence. Averill v. Boyles et

al., 675.
2712. Pleading. The District Town-

ship of (oon v. The Board of Di.
rectors of the District Township of

Providence et al., 289.
2728. Pleading. But r. Rheum, 622.
2730. Pleading. Brayley v. lleuges,

624.
2742. Practice in the Supreme Court.

Schmells v. Schmeltz, 514; Iloy v.

Cowgill, 712.
2752. Continuance. Randall v. Fock-

ler et al., 618.
2789. Practice. Betts t. The City of

Glencood, 125; Benson & Co. 0.

Lundy et al., 269.
2835. Bul of exceptions. Bellows 0.

Tod, 363.
2639. Practice in the Supreme Court.

Ilill et al. v. Ilolloway, 679.
2850. Practice. Jelick: 0. The First

National Bank of Tama City et

al., 96.
2866 Record. Smith 0. Cumins i

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

Co., 144.
2870. Practice, Lawrence v. II owell,

63,

Sec. 2873. Practice. Wright v. Lacy et

al., 250.
2877. New trial. VcBride v. IIarn, 80.
2900. Offer. The Town of Cherokee

V. The S. C. dl.F. Town Lot and

Land Co., 232.
2922, 2023, 2924. Order. Shaw .

McHenry, 135.
" 2933. Costs. Drummond v. Irish, 43.
2951. Attachment. Warder, Mitchell

& Co. 0. Thrilkeld, 135.
2979. Garnishment. Penn 1. Petan,

537.
2988. Garnishment. Hawthorn V.

Unthank, 509.
* 3021. Pleuding. Lowenstein v. Voore

and Foster, 232.
" 3072, 3073. Exemption. Tyson V. Rey-

nolue, 431.
* 3102. Judicial sale. Vills v. Ileaton,

217.
3103. Judicial sale. Spink v. IcCall,

435.
" 3154. New trial, Bailey, Wood &

Co., 7. Landingham et al., 415.
3154-3162. Practice. The State 0.

Whitcomb), 88.
3168. Practice. Black v. Boyd et al.,

720.
3170. Practice in the Supreme Court.

lloy v. Cowgill, 712.
" S173. Supreme Court. Wilson v. lowa

County, 340.
3183. Practice in the Suprerne Court.

Beits v. The City of Glenwood, 124.
3180. Appeal. Peck et al. v. Parchera

et al., 50.
3201. Practice. Black v. Boyd et al.,

720.
3207. Practice in the Supreme Court.

Betts v. The City of Glenwood, 126.
€ 3241. Replevin. Lillie v. McMillan,

466.
€ 3248. Practice. Brundige 0. Maloney,

220.
3297. Costs. IcClain v. McClain

and Durenport, 275.
3321. Judicial sale. Jills v. Ileatori,

217.
3373. Mandamus. Bailey 0. Ewart,

111.
" 3419, 3151, 3452, 3153, 3457. Habeas

Corpus. Shaw v. VcHenry, 184.
3590. Appeal. Clow v. Murphy, 697.
3611, 3620. Forcible entry and de-

tainer. Jordan v. Walker, 652.
363). Evidence. Bailey et al., v.

Keyes et al., 92; The First Na-
tional Bank of Burlingion 0.
Ouen el al., 109; Johnson 0. John-
son, 589; Williams et al. v. Bar-

pelt et al., 641.
3806. Fees. Upton v. The County

of Clinlon, 313.
" 3808, 38C9, 3810. Townships. The

Township of West Bend et al. v.

Muncto et al., 133.
3968. Public officer. The State v.

Vorse, 510.
4074. Fraudulent conveyance. Lillie

V. Jclillan, 464.
4088. Criminal law. The State v.

Stevenson, 702.
4337. Criminal law. The State 0.

Fowler, 106.
4420. Practice. The State V. Bate-

man, 605,
4421. Criminal law. The State o.
Fowler, 106.

Appeal. The City of Ottumwa
V. Schaub, 517,

4702.

1

LAWS OF 1868.
Chap. 173. Life Insurance. Rhode o. Bank

et al., 370.

LAWS OF 1870.
Chap. 64. Municipal bonds. The S. C.

St. P. R.10. 0. lsceola County, 29.

LAWS OF 1872.
Chap. 87. Municipal bonds. The S. C.

St. P. R. C'0. 0. Osceola County, 29.

Chap. 8. Boundary line. Nesselroad i.

Parrish, 270.
68. Railroads. Hoffbauer v. The
D. & N. W. R. Co., 312.

LAWS OF 1876.
Chap. 81. Negotiable paper. First Va-

tional Bank of Düvenpori 1. Price

sin fund, 571.
109. Mechanic's lien. Slert art &
Ilayden 1. Wrighi et al., 337.

LAWS OF 1878.
Chap. 19. Practice. The State 0. Bate-

man, 695.
145. Practice in the Supreme Court
Schmelz v. Schmeliz, 014.

LAWS OF 1874.
Cbap. 4. Mechanic's lien. The First Na-

tional Bank of Decorak 0. Day
Brothers et al., 061.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

See CONTRACT, 8.

EVIDENCE, 8.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 1. RECOVERY OF TAXES. A cause of action accrues against a county for

the recovery of illegal taxes paid at the time of their payment, and the statute of limitations runs against the claim from that time. Beecher

v. The County of Clay et al., 140. 2.

.: WANT OF KNOWLEDGE OF ILLEGALITY. The fact that the person paying such taxes is not aware of their illegality will not prevent the running of the statute against his claim. Id.

See DowER, 1.

PRACTICE, 11.
Tax SALE AND DEED, 1, 4, 11,

SUPREME COURT. 1. RULE REGULATING APPEALS: JURISDICTION. Rule 12 of the Supreme

Court, providing that appeals in cases involving less than one hundred dollars will only be considered when the certificate of the trial judge states the qnestion of law upon which an opinion is desirable, is not objectionable upon the ground that it limits the jurisdiction of the court. Wilson v. Iowa County, 339.

SURETY.

See ATTACIMENT, 2.

FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS, 1.
GARNISIIMENT, 1.
JUDGMENT, 1, 4.

TAXATION. 1. MUNICIPAL BONDS: COUNTY INDEBTEDNESS. The validity of negoti

able bonds of a county issued in satisfaction of judgments, in the hands of innocent holders for value, cannot be questioned by showing that the judgments were rendered upou warrants issued in excess of the constitutional limitation of âve per cent, and a tax levied to pay the principal and interest of such bonds may be enforced. Following The S. C. & St. P. R. Co.v. Osceola Comtij, 4.) lowa, 168. BECK, CH. J., dissenteng. The S. C. & St. P. R. Co. v. Osceola County, 26.

BURYING

GROUND.

2.

Bonds issued by' counties under the provisions of chapter 87, laws of 1872, are payable in all respects as is provided in chapter 1, title IV of the Code. It is the duty of the board of supervisors to levy the bond tax as there provided for their payment, and such tax is

not limited by section 810 of the Code to three mills. Id. 3. LAND OWNED BY CHURCH:

Wbere out of forty acres of land alleged to be held by a church is a burying ground, only one acre was actually used for burial purposes, and the remainder as farm land, it was held that the remaining thirty-nine acres were subject

to taxation. Mulroy v. Churchman et al., 2:38. 4. PUBLIC LANDS: RAILROAD GRANT. Where no conflicting claim is made

to lands inuring to a railroad company undera congressional grant they become taxable from the time they are earned by the company, though not certified by the land department until afterward. Facts considered and held insufficient to sustain the claim of it company to exemption on the ground that tlie certificate was withheld by re:ison of a conflicting

claim to the lands. The Iowa Railroad Land Co.v. Fitchpatrick, 244. 5. FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES: FARM

Whether or not farm property situated within the limits of a city or town is subject to taxation for municipal purposes is a question which must be determined upon the peculiar facts in each case. Upon the facts of the present case it was held that certain farm property in the city of Des Moines was incidentally enhanced in value by the improvement of the streets of the city, and was properly taxed for city purposes. Brooks et al v. Polk County, 460.

See EsTOPPEL, 1.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 1, 2,

PROPERTY.

TAXES, 1. TREASURER'S RECEIPT: DEPUTY COLLECTOR. The receipt of a deputy

collector of delinquent taxes has the same force and effect as that of the

treasurer. Jones r Velsing, 220. 2. RECOVERY OF: MISTAKE OF FICT. Certain lands were certified to

defendants under a railroad grant, and while holding such title they paid the taxes levied thereon). In an action in equity to quiet title it was adjudged that the lands passed to plaintiff's grantor under the prior swamp land grant; whether or not they passed under such grant was largely a question of fact, depending mpon the character of the lands: Teld, that the plaintiff should be required to reimburse the defendants for the taxes paid prior to the determination of such question. The American Emigrant Co. v. The Jowa Railroad Land Co. and The C. R. & M. R. R. Co., 3:23.

See DowER, 3.

MORTGAGE, 12.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 1, 2.
Tax SALE AND DEED, 3.

TAX SALE AND DEED. 1. Sale: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: UNOCCUPIED LANDS. Where prairie

land remains unoccupied for five years after the execution of a tax deed thereto, the possession is deemed to follow the tax title, and the holder thereof may maintain an action to protect such possession. Following Moingona Coal Co. v. Blair, 51 lowa, 447. BECK, CI. J., and Rotu: ROCK, J., dissenting. Lewis v. Soule et al., 11.

- PITMENT OF TAXES AFTER SALE: MANDAMUS.

TUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

[ocr errors]

2. -- FOR LESS TIIAN ENTIRE TRACT: UNDIVIDED PORTION. A pur

chaser at tax sale who offers to pay the taxes for less than the whole of a tract of land, under section 876 of the Code, acquires an undirided

interest in the whole tract. Brundige e'. Maloney, 218. 3.

After the sale of land for taxes by the treasurer, the deputy collector received the taxes from the owner and gave his receipt therefor, both being ignorant of the sale; upon discovery of the mistake the treasurer tendered to the holder of the certificate of purchase the return of his money with ten per cent interest, which was refused. The time for redemption having expired, held, that the tax purchaser was entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the issuance to him of a treasurer's deed. Jones v. Welsing,

220. 4.

The statute of limitations will not bar an action to quiet title by the holder of a tax deed who is in posses

sion. Wright r. Lacy et al., 248. 5. :: XOTICE TO REDEEM: SERVICE. For the purpose of service of

the notice required by section 891 of the Code, the owner of the legal title to land will be deemed to be in possession, in the absence of evi

dence to the contrary. Hall & Spencer v. Guthridge, 408. 6.

Such notice may be served by the holder of the certificate of sale in person. Ill. 7.

The provision for service upon the person in whose name the land is taxed has reference to the person in whose name it is taxed at the time of the service, and not at the date of the

sale. I. 8. DEED: UNOCCUPIED LANDS: POSSESSION. Where lands remain unoccu

pied for five years after the execution of a tax deel thereto, or are unoccupied at the expiration of that time, the possession is construct.

ively in the holder of the tax title. Goslee r'. Tearney et al., 455. 9. SALE: VALIDITY: EILURE TO ADVERTISE. The fact that the deserin

tion of certain lands was omitted by mistake from the Lst of lanıls advertised for sale by the treasurer for delinquent taxes will not invalidate the sale when the taxes were in fact delinquent. Shawler r.

Johnson, 472. 10. : TEIE OF: DEED IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. 'The time of sale

is not jurisdictional, and the tax deed is conclusive evidence of a com

pliance with the law in that respect. I. 11. -: ACTION AFTER FIVE YEARS; STATUTE OF LIVITATIONS. The

holder of a tax deed who is in possession may maintain an action to quiet title after the expiration of five years from the execution of his decu, and will be protected ly the statute of limitations from any defense by the former owner that would be barred as an affirmative cause of action. Id.

See WILL, 1.

TOWNSHIPS. 1. Not CORPORATIONS. Under the statutes of this State civil townships

are not corporations, but merely legal subdivisions of a county for gore ernmental purposes, and cannot sue or be sued. The Tounship of I'est Bend et al. e. Much et al., 132.

TRUST.
See CONVEYANCE, 2.

USURY. 1. NATIONAL BANKS: JURISDICTION. Where a national bank loang money

upon a usurious contract only such penalties can be enforced as are provided in the national banking act. Without regard to the question whether or not the state courts would have jurisdiction of an original action to enforce those penalties, when the bank sues upon such contract in a state court the defendant has the right to maintain the plea of usury as a defense in the same court. The National Bank of Win

terset 1. Eyre et al., 114. 2. PROMISSORY NOTE: RENEWAL. A note given in renewal of one which

is usurious, and covering the usurious interest, is itself affected with usury although bearing but the legal rate of interest, and it cannot be purged of such usury by having the amount credited thereon as a pay

ment, without the concurrence of the maker. II. 3. AS A DEFENSE: WIEN NOT AVAILABLE. A maker of a note and mort

gage who afterward sells the mortgaged property, the purchaser assuming the mortgage debt, cannot interpose the defense of usury in an action of foreclosure in which no personal judgment is asked against him; nor will the fact that an action is pending in which he seeks to set aside the conveyance by him as fraudulent and void authorize him to make such defense. The National Life Insurance Co. v. Olmsted et al., 354.

See PROMISSORY NOTE, 1.

VENDOR AND VENDEE. 1. CONVEYANCE: LIEN. Where a conveyance expressly provided for the

payment by the vendee, as a part of the consideration, of a judgment wliich was a lien upon the property, and excepted such judgment froin the covenants of warranty, it was held that the land was charged with the payment of the judgment in the hands of any one claiming through such conveyance, and that the grantee of other lands of the judgment debtor upon which the judgment was a lien, who was compelled to pay such judgment to protect his lands, was entitled to enforce the saine against the land specially charged with its payment. Barr v. Patrick,

704. 2. : ADJUDICATION. A decision adverse to such grantee, in an action

brought by him to compel the holder of the judgment to resort in the first instance to the land specially charged, would not be an adjudication of his rights as between him and the owner of such land, who was not a party. Id.

See CONTRACT, 3.

CONVEYANCE.
EVIDENCE, 9.
FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS, 3.
VENDOR'S LIEN.

VENDOR'S LIEN. 1. WAIVED BY TAKING MORTGAGE. A vendor's lien is waived by taking

a mortgage upon the property solel to secure the purchase-money.

Stuart v. Harrison et al., 511. 2. REQUISITES OF. A vendor of land, since section 1940 of the Code was

in force, who does not reserve a lien for purchase-money unpaid by conveyance or other recorded instrument, is not entitled to a lien after a conveyance by his vendee, although the purchaser had notice of his claim. Rotch v. Hussey et al., 694.

See CONVEYANCE, 3, 4.

MORTGAGE, 2.

« AnteriorContinuar »