Conger v. Converse
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Winnesheile District Court. Right. Botb parties claim under one Bullís — the plaintiff under a purchase at sheriff’s sale, the defendant by deed from the execution defendant. To maintain his title, plaintiff gave in evidence a deed from the sheriff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Winnesheile District Court. Right. Botb parties claim under one Bullís — the plaintiff under a purchase at sheriff’s sale, the defendant by deed from the execution defendant. To maintain his title, plaintiff gave in evidence a deed from the sheriff. It was admitted that judgments were rendered against Bullís at the time and for the sums in said deed specified, that no execution upon either of the judgments could be found, and that the records do not show the issuing, nor return of any such writ, nor any amount credited on such judgment. The plaintiff offered to prove by parol,…
1Opinion of the CourtWRifiHT, C. J.
As both parties claim under the same third person, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove title in Bullis. 2 Greenl. Ev. 307, and authorities there cited.
By the Code a sheriff’s deed is presumptive evidence of the regularity of all previous proceedings, and can be given in evidence without preliminary proof. (Section 1948.) The deed seems to have been thus received in this case. If the plaintiff had here rested his case, and no other testimony had been introduced, the judgment must have been in his favor. For some purpose, however, it appears that he proposed to prove the regularity of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Burton v. BoydSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Byers v. RodabaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Atlas Subsidiaries of Florida, Inc. v. KornegaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Cummings v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Armstead v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.