Grant v. Crow
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee District Cov/rt. The plaintiff and defendant are owners of adjoining lands, and the plaintiff claims that for many years there was kept and maintained along the line between their lands a lane which was used in common. The lane was afterward closed for a portion of its length, but the plaintiff claims that it was then agreed the residue thereof should be kept open. This agreement is denied by defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee District Cov/rt. The plaintiff and defendant are owners of adjoining lands, and the plaintiff claims that for many years there was kept and maintained along the line between their lands a lane which was used in common. The lane was afterward closed for a portion of its length, but the plaintiff claims that it was then agreed the residue thereof should be kept open. This agreement is denied by defendant. The plaintiff desired to have the lane kept open, and defendant desired to have it closed. Difficulties, suits and altercations arose between them relating thereto. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Seevebs, J., Migeme de novo. This cause is not triable de novo in this court, because no motion was made in the court below for a trial there on written evidence, and for the further reason there is no certificate of the judge that the abstract contains all the evidence, and the abstract fails to state that all the evidence is contained therein. In thus stating we are governed by the amended abstract, as is the established rule when there is no denial of its correctness. Therefore, there can only be a trial in this court on such errors as are duly assigned.
The 1st, 2d and 5th errors challenge…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Holmes v. Calhoun CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Cross v. B. & S. W. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Sankey v. St. Mary's Female AcademyMontana Supreme Court · 1889
- Long v. KasebeerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882