Legal Opinion · Dissent

Williams v. Tschantz

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 16, 1893Published

Appeal from Henry District Gowrt. — Hon. Charles D. Leggett, Judge. This is a special proceeding, by which it is sought to establish the corners and boundaries of certain real estate owned by the parties. A commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Henry District Gowrt. — Hon. Charles D. Leggett, Judge. This is a special proceeding, by which it is sought to establish the corners and boundaries of certain real estate owned by the parties. A commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties. The commissioner filed his report, and the appellant excepted to the sáme, and the court, after the introduction of evidence by the respective parties, entered an order affirming the report, from which order the defendant, Tsc'hantz, appeals.

1DissentGiven, J.

(dissenting). — I can not concur in the conclusion that questions of title by adverse possession or occupancy may be tried in this proceeding. It seems to me that the necessity for, and the language and purpose of, chapter 8, Acts of the Fifteenth General Assembly, under which this proceeding is had, forbids such a conclusion. I am clearly of the opinion that the sole purpose of that chapter is the permanent establishment of corners and boundaries to lands, and .not the settlement of titles based upon any other facts. The provisions of law for settling titles based upon adverse possession or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gates v. BrooksSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
  2. Doolittle v. BaileySupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
  3. Mitchell v. WilsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
  4. Davis v. CurtisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
  5. Smith v. ScolesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API