Keas v. Burns
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from- Dubuque District Court. This is a controversy between the same parties, and growing ont of the same subject-matter (though with parties inverted and in another phase), as reported in, 21 ■ Iowa. While that case ivas pending in this court, or rather after it was decided in the court below, this case, to recover pay for improvements under the occupying claimant law, was brought, tried and determined in the District Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from- Dubuque District Court. This is a controversy between the same parties, and growing ont of the same subject-matter (though with parties inverted and in another phase), as reported in, 21 ■ Iowa. While that case ivas pending in this court, or rather after it was decided in the court below, this case, to recover pay for improvements under the occupying claimant law, was brought, tried and determined in the District Court. The plaintiffs claim under Edward Keas ; the defendants under Margaret Keas. The District Court found the-facts, in substance as follows : Margaret owned the lot…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
Oooupyrtro possession must be adverse.. The District Court held correctly, and the judgment must be affirmed. The holding of the plaintiffs’ ancestor, Edward Keas, under whom they claim, was not adverse ’to, but was con- , ' . , sistent with, and recognizing the title of, his wife, Margaret Keas, under whom defendants claim. To establish, a right to pay for improvements under our occupying claimant law, it is essential that the possession under and during which the improvements are made, shall be adverse to the holder of the paramount title. Rev. §§ 2264-2276; Wiltse v. Hurley et al., 11…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Livingston v. LivingstonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Wiltse v. HurleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1861
3Cited by3 opinions
- Snell v. MechanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Meyers v. CanuttSupreme Court of Iowa · 1951
- Meyers v. CanuttSupreme Court of Iowa · 1951