Duncombe v. Prindle
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Webster District Court. This suit was instituted in Webster county, upon a promissory note for one hundred and twenty-five dollars, dated October, 1858, and payable at thirty days.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Webster District Court. This suit was instituted in Webster county, upon a promissory note for one hundred and twenty-five dollars, dated October, 1858, and payable at thirty days. The defendant set out by way of answer, that he resided in Township 90, range 28, west of the 5th P. M., which is situated within the boundaries of Humboldt county, as he claimed would more fully appear by an act approved January 28, 1857, entitled “ an act to create the county of Humboldt; ” and “ an act explanatory of the act, entitled an ‘act to create the county of Humboldt;” approved March 11th,…
1Opinion of the Court
Lowe, C. J1
The object of this proceeding is obviously to -obtain a judicial construction of the acts described in the pleadings, for the purpose of determining whether townships 90-91, of ranges 27 to 30, are within the territorial area of Webster or of Humboldt county. If in the former, the judgment below should be affirmed. If in the latter, then it should be reversed. Originally this township, with the ranges above disignated, were embraced wdthin the boundaries of Humboldt county, as defined by an act approved January 15th, 1851. At that time, by the same act, the boundaries of Kossuth…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barker v. Guilliam & ChaplineSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by33 opinions
- County of Mitchell v. City National BankTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Hunter v. Colfax Consolidated Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- McGuire v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Koehler & Lange v. HillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
- Sherman v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.