Shoemaker v. Porter
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Warren Ci/rouit Court. This action was brought to recover possession of the W. -J-of N. W. ¿ of section 22, and the W. -J- of S. W. and S. W. J of N. W. J- of section 15, all in township 77, range 28. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner thereof, and that he is entitled to three hundred dollars damages for being unlawfully kept out of the possession of the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Warren Ci/rouit Court. This action was brought to recover possession of the W. -J-of N. W. ¿ of section 22, and the W. -J- of S. W. and S. W. J of N. W. J- of section 15, all in township 77, range 28. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner thereof, and that he is entitled to three hundred dollars damages for being unlawfully kept out of the possession of the same. The defendants filed an answer in general denial, and also a cross petition in equity, averring that they were the owners of the lands; that the plaintiff claims title thereto under certain tax sales and deeds;…
1Opinion of the Court
Cole, J..1. tax sale : contract:011 ‘ It is not necessary to state the evidence or pleadings at length, both of which are quite voluminous. Ve need only state the conclusions of fact and law to which we are lead. The land in controversy all formerly belonged to one William Harris, who died intestate, in June, 1857, leaving a widow and fifteen children as his heirs at law, the defendant, Cynthia Porter, being one. One of the children died without issue shortly after the death of the father. The defendants, by descent and purchase, became the owners of all the shares but four. At the tax sale…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Springer v. BartleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- McElroy v. AllfreeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Leas v. GarverichSupreme Court of Iowa · 1889