Woodruff & Son v. Rhoton
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the CourtLarson, C.J.
The sole issue raised in this appeal is the sufficiency of the demand notice served upon the cross-petitioners by the defendant owners, Albert L. Rhoton and Hazel V. Rhoton, measured by the requirements of section 572.28, Code of Iowa.
At the request of the appellants under rule 105, R. C. P., the trial court held the notices did constitute a sufficient and proper demand under the statute, and that the appellants forfeited their liens by their failure to commence foreclosure actions within thirty days after written demands were served upon them. We agree with the trial court.
Section 572.28,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cowman v. HansenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
- Dingman v. City of Council BluffsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
- Steele v. MurrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. City of SpringfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Farnsworth v. HazelettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Dillon v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1985
- Presbytery of Southeast Iowa v. HarrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- Blakeney v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998
- Petersen v. FARMERS CASUALTY COMPANYSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
- Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co. v. Iowa Transportation Regulation BoardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.