Wright v. Lacy
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Warren Gw&wit Court. The petition stated that plaintiff was the absolute owner of certain described real estate; that tbe defendants claimed some interest therein by virtue of an alleged tax sale and deed; that tbe plaintiff was in the actual possession of tbe premises. The relief asked was that tbe tax sale and deed be declared void, and the title quieted in the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Warren Gw&wit Court. The petition stated that plaintiff was the absolute owner of certain described real estate; that tbe defendants claimed some interest therein by virtue of an alleged tax sale and deed; that tbe plaintiff was in the actual possession of tbe premises. The relief asked was that tbe tax sale and deed be declared void, and the title quieted in the plaintiff. J. T. Lacy disclaimed having any interest in the premises, and Emily Lacy filed an answer and cross-petition in which she admitted the plaintiff was in possession of the premises, but averred that such…
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
3. tax sale: statute o£Um-Rations. I. The appellant insists that his demurrer to the cross-petition was erroneously overruled. The cross-petition states that defendant is in possession of the premises, and that plaintiff makes some claim
tion states that defendant is in possession of the thereto. This the demurrer admits. . Defendant did not seek to recover the premises, but to quiet the title. This, under the statute, she could do. Being in possession, the statute of limitations, invoked by the plaintiff, does not bar the action or relief asked in the cross-petition.
2. pjbactick: built:…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clute Bros. v. HazletonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hallett Construction Co. v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
- Free v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1907