Roth v. Headlee
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
Garfield, J.—
In effect, plaintiff-appellant asserts the question presented to us is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the allowance of his claim. This is a misconception. The action was tried at law without a jury. It is not reviewable here de novo but only upon the errors assigned. Rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure; In re Estate of Hoenig, 230 Iowa 718, 720, 298 N. W. 887, 889; In re Estate of Anderson v. Application of Stason & Knoepfler, 216 Iowa 1017, 1019, 250 N. W. 183, and citations. The decision below on the facts has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Rule 334,…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Maasdam v. Estate of MaasdamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
- In Re Estate of NewsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- In Re Estate of StratmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
- In Re Estate of TaltySupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
- In Re Estate of HaleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Markman v. HoeferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
- Carlson v. Bankers Trust Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951
- Ruble v. CarrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
- Lautenbach v. MeredithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
- Cole v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.