Miller v. Bradford
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee District Court. Action to recover lot number one, in block number five, in the city of Keokuk. Both parties claim under James Muir,' to whom the lot was decreed in the partition of the Half Breed Reservation, prior to the respective conveyances under which the parties claim. The plaintiff claims the whole lot by virtue of a deed from Muir, dated August 22d, 1842, duly acknowledged and recorded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee District Court. Action to recover lot number one, in block number five, in the city of Keokuk. Both parties claim under James Muir,' to whom the lot was decreed in the partition of the Half Breed Reservation, prior to the respective conveyances under which the parties claim. The plaintiff claims the whole lot by virtue of a deed from Muir, dated August 22d, 1842, duly acknowledged and recorded. The defendants claimed under a deed from Muir, dated March 22d, 1842, filed for record April 14th, and recorded April 21st, 1842. On the trial, after the plaintiff rested, the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Weight, J. — I.
Eor the purpose of bringing home to defendant, or those under whom he claims, notice of an outstanding title, plaintiffs proposed to prove possession of the premises in controversy, and improvements made thereon by' them, or those from whom they claim, at the time of the inception of defendant’s title. The rejection of this testimony was correct under the rule established, in Hopping v. Burnam, 2 G. Greene. 39, and Wilhelm v. Mertz, 4 Ib. 54. When the deed was not recorded, the statute then in force, required actual notice. This statute has been long since repealed. It on two…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Gilchrist v. GoughIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Barnard v. CampauMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Barney v. McCartySupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Johnson v. HessIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Poplin v. MundellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.