Alexander v. Bishop
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Montgomery OvrouU Oourt. Action at law to recover damages for tlie breach by defendant of tlie conditions of a written agreement between the parties. The cause was tried without a jury aud judgment was rendered for the plaintiff upon findings of fact and law by the court. Defendant appeals. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtRothrook, J.
We do not deem it necessary to set out at length the written contract. It appears from the record that the defendant owned a building which he had leased to the plaintiff and in which plaintiff was keeping a stock of merchandise as a retail dealer, and the lease was for a term which would have expired in October, 1882. The defendant desired to erect another and better house upon the ground where the leased building stood. Thereupon the parties, on the 22d day of July, 1880, entered into the written contract, the breach of which is complained of, by which it was agreed, in substance, that the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Booth v. . Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Adair v. BogleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Howe Machine Co. v. BrysonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Salvo v. DuncanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Johr v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Hichhorn, Mack & Co. v. BradleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Brewington v. LoughranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Millett v. Minnesota Crushed Stone Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Dopheide v. SchoeppnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1968
- Montgomery v. GallasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.