Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hawkeye Securities Fire Insurance v. Central Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided November 21, 1929No. 39270Published

1DissentMorling, J.

(dissenting). — The remedy asked for is the equitable one of specific performance. The letter which, as a contract, is sought to be enforced by specific performance does not, on plaintiff’s own evidence, correctly express the agreement and intent of the parties, which were that defendant “would agree to repurchase or take it [the security sold] back at any time if the same became in default;” not, “if this mortgage is ever foreclosed, * * * we will repurchase * * *” Neither the agreement as it was made nor the letter sued upon as the contract, when properly interpreted, as it seems to me,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Dustan v. . McAndrewNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  2. Richmond v. Dubuque & Sioux City R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1871
  3. Schmidt v. BarrIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Hamilton v. FinneganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  5. Lockie v. BakerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API