This case concerned property tax assessments in Des Moines, Iowa, where local officials divided the city into zones, appraised land and improvements using unit costs minus depreciation, and then applied arbitrary location-based discounts ranging from 2 to 50 percent, resulting in unequal valuations for similar properties. Thousands of taxpayers challenged the assessments before the local board and appealed to district court. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the State Board of Assessment and Review had authority under the code to order corrections to these discriminatory practices by requiring uniform valuation methods across zones, without conducting new individual assessments. The court reversed the lower court, finding the state board's order addressed aggregate inequalities rather than reassessing specific properties.
In Hoover v. Mutual Trust Life Insurance, a farmer who purchased life insurance policies providing monthly disability benefits sued the insurer after developing progressive arthritis that left him substantially unable to perform physical farm labor since 1937, though he could give general directions to hired help from his bed or home. The policies defined total disability as preventing the insured from engaging in any occupation or performing work for compensation of financial value. The trial court overruled the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The court reasoned that the evidence showed the plaintiff's physical limitations prevented him from engaging in his farming occupation, that any minimal supervision did not qualify as an occupation, and that total disability under the policy did not require absolute helplessness, making the issue a proper jury question under controlling precedents.
In Schultz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, a nonresident plaintiff sued the defendant insurance company for damages, and the defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to post a bond for costs under Iowa Code section 11245. The motion was supported by an affidavit from one of the defendant's attorneys stating that the company had a good defense and that the plaintiff was a nonresident; the trial court overruled the motion on grounds that the affidavit was insufficient and untimely. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that a corporation may properly make the required affidavit through its attorney under the attorney's statutory powers to execute instruments for the defense of an action, and that the motion was timely because the statute permits filing at any time before answering and the parties' correspondence had extended the deadline. The court distinguished prior precedent requiring earlier filing when a court order had set a specific deadline.
The case concerned the interpretation of Eldora E. Myers's will, which devised a life estate in two farms to her husband W. S. Myers and a one-half interest in those farms to the legal heirs of her deceased father, to be distributed according to law upon the husband's death. Ralph S. Flanagan, one such heir and a nephew of the testator, died before the life tenant but had conveyed his interest to his wife, the plaintiff. The court held that the devise created a vested remainder in the ascertained heirs living at the testator's death, including Ralph, rather than a contingent remainder dependent on surviving the life tenant. This conclusion followed from the will's language identifying definite beneficiaries and postponing only possession and enjoyment until the life estate ended, allowing Ralph's interest to pass validly by deed.
The case Ford v. Young involved a dispute over whether James M. Young had entered into an oral agreement with Richard Ford to leave all his property to Fred Ford in exchange for Fred living with and working for Young until age 21. The plaintiff Fred Ford claimed he performed under the agreement by living with the Youngs as their son and working on their farm, but after Young's death, his collateral relatives (defendants) inherited the property instead. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and on appeal the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to establish the oral contract despite it being unwitnessed directly, based on performance and corroborating circumstances including a purported will favoring the plaintiff.
In this case, a husband filed for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruel treatment after the couple separated in 1933, while his wife filed a cross-petition for separate maintenance on similar grounds. The lower court denied the divorce and awarded the wife separate maintenance of $15 per month until the husband provided a home and support. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding insufficient evidence that the wife had engaged in desertion or cruel treatment endangering the husband's life. The court also determined that the husband had failed to provide a separate home or adequate support, instead insisting on living with his family, which constituted desertion warranting the maintenance award. The decision rested on factual review of the evidence, with deference to the trial court's findings amid conflicting testimony.