Hammarstedt v. Bakeley
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Boone District Court. — E. M. McCall, Judge. Suit in equity, based upon alleged fraudulent representations relative to mining privileges. There was a decree for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. The necessary facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.
1. Fraud : fraudulent representations : seeming paradox. On the first day of March, 1911, Hezekiah Atwood conveyed the west one half (W%) of the southwest quarter (SW%) and the southeast quarter (SE]4) of the southwest quarter (SW14I of Section 21, Township 84 North, Range 27, except some small tracts therein described, to the plaintiff by warranty deed containing the following clause: “Excepting and reserving all coal and mineral underlying all said premises.” It also contained the usual covenants of seizin against encumbrances, good right and lawful authority to sell and convey and to-…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Marvin v. . Brewster Iron Mining Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Brandt v. FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- Porter v. Mack Manufacturing Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Hooper v. Dora Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Wardell v. WatsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Grell v. LumsdenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Grell v. LumsdenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928