Stein v. Chambless
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Muscatine District Court. Action of right. — At the trial, the plaintiff gets a finding for the "land described in his petition. The defendants asked for a new trial, on the ground that the decision in the premises was against the facts and the law in the case. The bill of exceptions exhibits tbe following state of case: First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Muscatine District Court. Action of right. — At the trial, the plaintiff gets a finding for the "land described in his petition. The defendants asked for a new trial, on the ground that the decision in the premises was against the facts and the law in the case. The bill of exceptions exhibits tbe following state of case: First. A concession that tbe legal title of tbe land in controversy was in tbe defendant Banford prior to the judicial sales hereafter specified. Second. At the February Term, 1858, John B. Dougherty and the firm of Lemp & Sells severally obtained j udgment…
1Opinion of the CourtLowe, J.
1. Judicial sale: redemption. The purchase by Ohambless of Banford’s right to redeem the property from the sales to Dougherty, and to Lemp & Sells, conferred upon him no other or better right than Banford himself possessed, and the legal effect of a redemption by him is the *476same as if Banford himself had redeemed, leaving the property subject to be taken in satisfaction of any subsisting lien or judgment thereon. Crosby v. Elkader Lodge No. 72, 16 Iowa, 899; Curtis v. Millard, 14 Id., 128.
2. - irregularity in sale. Argu. 1. - sale after return day. It follows, therefore, that the conveyance…
2Cited by10 opinions
- McQueeney v. ToomeyMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Childs v. McChesneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Moomey v. MaasSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Vroman v. ThompsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Blair v. ComptonMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.