Conly v. Dilley
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Woodbury and Polk District Courts. — Hons. David Mould and Lawrence De Graff, Judges. The opinion states the nature of tliis litigation and the material facts to be considered.
1Opinion of the CourtWeaver, J.
A statement of consent for tbe sale of intoxicating liquors in Woodbury county, Iowa, under the provisions of the statute known as the “Mulct Law” (Code, sections 2432-2455), was presented to the board of supervisors, and upon being duly canvassed, was adjudged sufficient on January 7, 1901. No appeal from that finding was ever taken. Under’ the statute then in force this consent would remáin effective for its designed purposes until revoked according to law, subject of course to future legislation on that subject. Later the law was amended by the Thirty-First General Assembly (chapter 101),…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Duncombe v. PrindleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Weyand v. StoverSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Barker v. Guilliam & ChaplineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. JennessSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
3Cited by9 opinions
- Carlton v. GrimesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
- Davidson Building Co. v. MulockSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
- State ex rel. Hammond v. LynchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Fitzgerald v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
- Iowa Electric Co. v. ScottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.