Day v. Schroeder
Supreme Court of Iowa
The plaintiffs claim that they have the legal title in fee simple to, and that they are entitled to the immediate possession of, lot twenty-six, in railroad addition to Decorah. The defendants deny that .plaintiffs are the owners of the premises described, and that they are entitled to the possession thereof.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs claim that they have the legal title in fee simple to, and that they are entitled to the immediate possession of, lot twenty-six, in railroad addition to Decorah. The defendants deny that .plaintiffs are the owners of the premises described, and that they are entitled to the possession thereof. The parties entered into the following stipulation of facts, which sufficiently present their respective claims: “It is stipulated that the title of that portion of the premises described in petition, not heretofore occupied by Pearl street, is, as shown by’abstract of title attached to…
1Opinion of the Court
Day, Ch. J.
i muktotpai, vacation o£Si street. Plaintiffs claim title to the property in controversy in virtue of a quit claim deed, executed on the 18th day of September, 1869, by the original proprietor °*' ^ie town of Decorah, and an ordinance of said town, passed on the next day, vacating that portion of Pearl street, including the premises in dispute. The claim of plaintiffs is based upon the theory that upon the vacation of the street the title reverted to the original proprietor. Section 637 of the Code of 1851, under which the town of Decorah was laid out, provides: “The acknowledgment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pettingill v. DevinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
3Cited by9 opinions
- Prall v. BurckharttIllinois Supreme Court · 1921
- Payne v. City of LaramieWyoming Supreme Court · 1965
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. PatchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Jacobs v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1961
- City of Lake City v. FulkersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.