McDaniel v. Marygold
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Dubuque District Court. In chancery. Complainants claim a workhjg interest in mineral lots 41 and 49 ; aver in their bill, that respondents unjustly deprive them of their rights in said property; and ask that their respective interests may be settled, and defendants be required to render an account of the mineral raised by them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Dubuque District Court. In chancery. Complainants claim a workhjg interest in mineral lots 41 and 49 ; aver in their bill, that respondents unjustly deprive them of their rights in said property; and ask that their respective interests may be settled, and defendants be required to render an account of the mineral raised by them. All the material allegations of the bill, are denied in the answers; and the case was heard on the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony. It appears that the parties (complainants and respondents) hold, or claim, the premises as lessees of other persons,…
1Opinion of the CourtWkight, C. J.
To reverse this decree, complainants rely in their argument upon two grounds : 1. That the special verdict does not find and settle the rights of the parties to the south half of lot 49, and is thereupon, not responsive to the issue or issues made; and, 2. Teat such verdict is against, and contrary to, the evidence. The argument on the first point, is this: that notwithstanding the jury find, that defendants are entitled to one-half of the working interest in the south half of lot 49, yet there is no finding as to who is entitled to the other half, and that, therefore, there is no verdict as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reed v. Cline's heirsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
3Cited by3 opinions
- White v. HamptonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Emery v. First National BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- Hobart v. HobartSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879