Saunders v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
Evans, J. —
The foregoing statement of the ruling appealed from is suggestive of simplicity, but it furnishes no indication of the question actually litigated between the parties. As ground for dissolving the attachment, the defendant asserted in his motion, and the court held, that he had no other interest in the real estate attached than that of the contingent remainder under the will of Joseph Boiler, deceased. The resisting contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant had a vested interest in said land, under the wall of Joseph Boiler, though conceding it to be subject to defeasance…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Moore v. LittelNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Fulton v. FultonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Taylor v. TaylorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Miller v. . EmansNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Young v. YoungSupreme Court of Virginia · 1893
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Henkel v. AuchstetterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
- Skelton v. CrossSupreme Court of Iowa · 1936
- Bogenrief v. LawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Blair v. KenastonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Noonan v. State Bank of LivermoreSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.