Gow v. Tidrick
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Adair District Court, The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners in fee simple and entitled to the possession of an eighty acres of wild, uncultivated land, described in the petition, under a tax deed, executed on the 23d day of November, 1874, pursuant to a sale had on the 2Lst day of November, 1871,.for the delinquent taxes of 1871, and that the defendant makes some claim to-the real estate in question adverse to the title of plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Adair District Court, The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners in fee simple and entitled to the possession of an eighty acres of wild, uncultivated land, described in the petition, under a tax deed, executed on the 23d day of November, 1874, pursuant to a sale had on the 2Lst day of November, 1871,.for the delinquent taxes of 1871, and that the defendant makes some claim to-the real estate in question adverse to the title of plaintiffs. The defendant alleges that he is the owner of the land in fee simple; that the tax sale is void because of an unlawful combination between…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
I. No motion for trial on written evidence was. made as contemplated in see. 2742 of the Code. The cause is not, therefore, as has been settled by repeated decisions of this court, triable .de novo. It can be reviewed only on errors, duly assigned.
II. The allegation that there was a fraudulent combination amongst the bidders is not established by the proof.. Even if we were to try this question de novo, we should, upon the evidence, be obliged to find as did the eourt below. A fortiori can we not disturb the court’s finding, reviewed as in a law action, with the same presumptions in its favor…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Colorado Springs & Interurban Railway Co. v. ReeseSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917
- Davies v. RayburnNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1947