Legal Opinion

Madison v. Hood

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 23, 1929PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

De Graff, J. —

This action is based upon a violation of a statutory duty on the part of the defendants. Section 2312, Code of 1897. There can be and there is no question about this. It was the duty of the defendants to restrain the animal that caused the alleged damage. See Hansen v. Kemmish, 201 Iowa 1008, loc. cit. 1011; Hickey v. Freeman, 198 Iowa 465.

A brief analysis of the facts is first in order. The defendant Fred Hood, residing on a contiguous farm to that of plaintiff, was the joint owner with his wife, Florence, of a roan bull which was kept on the Hood premises just across the road…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hansen v. KemmishSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  2. Fowle v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  3. Woodbury Co. v. Dougherty & Bryant Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  4. Porter v. Madrid State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
  5. Graham v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1909

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mallory v. JurgenaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1958
  2. Mendenhall v. StruckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
  3. Fuchser v. JacobsonNebraska Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Hall v. UmikerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Hall v. UmikerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1973

1 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