Everett v. Croskrey
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Tama District Court. — Hon. George W. Burnham, Judge. After decree in an action for partition was affirmed by the supreme court, and the parties themselves had divided the land, on motion of plaintiffs, the district court allowed plaintiff’s attorney fees for services rendered in both courts, apportioning them among plaintiffs and defendant according to their respective interests, and required defendant to pay one-sixth thereof. From this order he appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtLadd, J.
The issue tried was whether the defendant owned one-sixth of the land, as stated in the petition, or one-half thereof, as alleged in the answer. In other words, the title to one-third of the land was in dispute, and was adjudged to be in the plaintiffs. 92 Iowa, 333 (60 N. W. Rep. 732). Thereafter the *18parties, by the execution of deeds, divided the lands, giving to each the portion awarded by the decree. The title, only, was contested, and no partition made by the court. In McClain v. McClain, 52 Iowa, 272 (3 N. W. Rep. 60), it is said: “While in form this is an action for partition, yet it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- McClain v. McClainSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
- Duncan v. DuncanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Everett v. CroskreySupreme Court of Iowa · 1894
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hanson v. HansonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Hawk v. DaySupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Beeman v. KitzmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Johnston v. BootheSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.