Burk v. Putman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Page District Court. — Hon. Walter I. Smith,. J ndge. Tiie two above entitled suits Avere brought to subject certain property to a judgment held by plaintiff against T.. L. Putman; the first to subject personal property, and the second real estate. The trial court granted part of the relief asked, and defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the Court
Deemer, T.
1 It is claimed that the legal title to certain-lots noAV in the name of Jessie D. Putman, and an interest that she claims in a partnership business in the tOAvn of Shenandoah, is fraudulent and void, as against creditors. To establish the claim of fraud, plaintiff introduced the defendants Putman, A\dio are husband and Avife, as Avitnesses, and it is largely on their evidence that the decree of the district court is based. Appellants admit that, under the statute as-it now reads, this evidence was admissible, but they claim that the statute is unconstitutional and void. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- McAunich v. Mississippi & Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Terrell v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Wormley v. HamburgSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- Iowa Eclectic Medical College Ass'n v. SchraderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Benson v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1995
- Rauen v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1987
- Payne v. Buena Vista Extract Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1919
- Virginia & West Virginia Coal Co. v. CharlesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.