Wright v. Keithler
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. This was an action under the Code, (ch. 116) for the recovery of real property. The petition is in the usual form.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. This was an action under the Code, (ch. 116) for the recovery of real property. The petition is in the usual form. The defendant by his answer, averred that if the plaintiff had any title to the land in controversy, it was based upon, and derived from, a certain decree of partition, made in the district court of Lee county, Territory of Iowa, on the 8th of May, 1841, in a certain suit therein tried and determined, wherein Josiah Spaulding and others, were plaintiffs, and Fuphrosine Antaye and others, were defendants; and that said decree of partition was…
1Opinion of the CourtStockton, J.
The defendant offered to prove, “ that himself, and those under whom he claimed, had had actual and continued possession of the land described in the petition, for more than ten years prior to the commencement of the suit.” This testimony was objected to by the plaintiff, and excluded by the court.
Would the testimony, if admitted, have constituted a good defence to the action ? In the terms in which it is stated, we think it would not. It is not stated that the testimony offered, would have shown an adverse possession; and it must have been an adverse actual possession in defendant, and those…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Phares v. WaltersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
3Cited by11 opinions
- Grube v. WellsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Mason v. MessengerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Rice v. NelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
- Keller v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Goulding v. ShonquistSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.