Seymour v. Shea
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Palo Alto District Gourt. AotioN IN equity. It is stated in tbe petition that plaintiff, in 1876, was the owner of. certain described lands. That liis title was derived from Palo Alto county under tbe swamp land grant, and that bis title was perfect, except that the lands had not been patented by tbe state of Iowa to said comity.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Palo Alto District Gourt. AotioN IN equity. It is stated in tbe petition that plaintiff, in 1876, was the owner of. certain described lands. That liis title was derived from Palo Alto county under tbe swamp land grant, and that bis title was perfect, except that the lands had not been patented by tbe state of Iowa to said comity. Tliat at said time the defendant, Shea, was tbe agent of plaintiff, and had tbe care and charge of said lands, and, for tbe purpose of cheating tbe plaintiff, wrote liim a letter and signed tbe name of J. 0. Bennett thereto, in which a desire to purchase…
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
I. At the term the cause was submitted, it was made to appear to the court that Brown had conveyed to Shea, and the latter to one Gregg, and he to T. W. Harrison, and that the latter was the only real party in interest; where*711upon, on motion, tbe said Harrison was duly substituted as defendant in tliis cause instead of said W. H. Sbea.
It is insisted by both parties that certain questions are made for the first time in this court, and therefore, under the 1. practice eouvtp:retriai what ques-xous tried. settled practice, they cannot be considered. As to some of these questions we have the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Linden v. GreenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Clapp v. GreenleeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Shelley v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Newman v. FrenchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Fryer v. HarkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.