Richard F. Mitchell

The case concerned the Iowa Real Estate Commissioner's revocation of Ben H. Blakeley's real estate broker license based on his alleged misconduct while serving as a court-appointed referee in a partition action involving the sale of real estate. Blakeley challenged the revocation through a certiorari action in district court, which annulled the commissioner's order, and the commissioner appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Iowa Code section 1905.45 limits license revocation after the initial six-month period to misconduct in performing duties as a real estate broker or salesman. The court further reasoned that section 1905.23 expressly exempts persons selling real estate under court order from the chapter's requirements, so Blakeley's actions as referee fell outside the commissioner's regulatory authority.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Kelly v. Sigismund, plaintiff Kelly sued defendant Sigismund for the $619.20 purchase price of 69 hogs delivered in July 1940, alleging nonpayment after demand. Sigismund answered that he had paid in full by delivering an assignment instrument (Exhibit 1) transferring funds from his credit union account at the time of sale. The instrument was deposited but dishonored due to insufficient funds at the credit union, though Sigismund had adequate deposits; evidence conflicted on whether Kelly accepted the assignment as full settlement. The trial court overruled motions for directed verdict, the jury found for Kelly, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that acceptance as payment was a disputed fact question for the jury, with supporting evidence that Kelly did not treat it as full payment and that Sigismund later agreed to cover it.

business & regulatory

This case involved a property owner appealing the tax assessment of his 61-acre Iowa farm, which had been valued at $35 per acre (plus $535 for buildings) for 1941 taxes, claiming the total exceeded 60% of actual value under state law. The local board of review overruled the objections, and the district court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the owner failed to prove the assessment was also discriminatory or inequitable compared to similar properties. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statute permits relief based solely on proof of excessive valuation without needing to show inequity, and that the evidence established an actual value of $30 per acre. It remanded the case with instructions to adjust the assessed valuation to 60% of that amount while leaving the building valuation unchanged.

taxesproperty

The case Boyles v. Cora involves a split decision by the court. Justice Mitchell dissents from the majority and states his disagreement in this excerpt. He explains that his full views appear in the original opinion issued by the court on October 14, 1941, and published at 300 N.W. 281.

procedure

The case involved Louise Armstrong suing the City of Des Moines for personal injuries sustained when she fell into a manhole on a public sidewalk after the cover tipped up due to broken lugs, alleging the city negligently maintained the sidewalk in a dangerous condition. After dismissing claims against other defendants, a jury awarded her $1,900 against the city, which appealed on grounds including failure to allege timely notice of claim under the statute and lack of evidence of negligence or constructive notice. The court affirmed the verdict, holding that the city waived the statute of limitations defense by not pleading it in the trial court and that evidence from multiple witnesses supported the jury's finding that the defect had existed for months or years, imposing a duty on the city to maintain the sidewalk safely.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Lewis Freeseman brought an equity action against the administrator of his deceased sister Tillie Henrichs's estate, seeking to impose a trust on two-thirds of the residuary personal property from their brother Dick Freeseman's estate based on an alleged oral agreement that Dick would leave the property to Tillie, who would then transfer half of it to Lewis. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, but on de novo review the Iowa Supreme Court reversed. The court held that enforcement of such an oral contract requires proof that is clear, convincing, and satisfactory rather than a bare preponderance, and found the testimony from the plaintiff, his wife, and a tenant insufficient due to inconsistencies with the will's drafting process, a later codicil, threats to contest the will, and a release executed in related estate settlements.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Herbert Blowers, who crashed his car into the railway company's unlit snow sweeper parked on tracks in the middle of a city street during a snowstorm; the sweeper had been left there for over two days and was covered in snow. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on grounds of contributory negligence, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed. The court held that, based on evidence of the sweeper's poor visibility, the plaintiff's reasonable speed and attention, and witness testimony that the object was not discernible until very close, the issue of contributory negligence under the assured-clear-distance-ahead rule was a factual question for the jury rather than a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Kathryn Robertson, as beneficiary, sued Mutual Life Insurance Company to recover double indemnity under her late husband's life insurance policy, alleging that his death from hypostatic pneumonia was caused by an accidental hip fracture sustained in a fall. The insurer admitted issuing the policy but denied liability, asserting that the death was not solely due to accidental means independent of disease or infirmity, that due proof of accidental death was not furnished, and that it had been refused the right to perform an autopsy. After a jury trial, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that evidence created a factual dispute as to whether the fall was accidental rather than the result of a cerebral hemorrhage, that the question was properly submitted to the jury, and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on proof of loss, jury instructions, expert testimony, or admission of evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Dilliner v. Joyce, plaintiff Madeline Dilliner sued the trustees operating the Chicago Great Western Railroad after sustaining injuries when the car in which she was a passenger collided with a stationary freight train blocking a crossing on a foggy night in Polk County, Iowa. The jury awarded her $3,000, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the defendants. The court reasoned that a train stopped on a crossing provides sufficient warning to motorists, that the railroad owed no additional duty to provide warnings under the circumstances, and that any alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident, following its prior decision in Dolan v. Bremner.

torts & liability

This case involved a claim by Verna Wallrich against her mother-in-law, Frances Wallrich, for alienating the affections of her husband Harold, leading to his desertion. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant made disparaging remarks about her, attempted to prevent the marriage, and interfered after the wedding. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the necessary elements of the claim and that there were no prejudicial errors in the trial court's instructions.

family lawtorts & liability

The case involved the Iowa Methodist Hospital suing Cora Utterback to recover the unpaid balance of $345.10 for hospital care provided to her husband, Hubert Utterback, under a state statute making both spouses liable for reasonable and necessary family expenses. The wife defended on the ground that her husband had deserted her, ending the family relationship and any obligation for his medical bills incurred afterward. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the hospital. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute applied to the husband's medical treatment as a family expense and that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the wife remained liable despite claims of desertion. The court also ruled that a later-filed divorce petition was inadmissible as self-serving and that the hospitalization was medically necessary.

family lawhealthcare

In this case, the Federal Land Bank of Omaha and Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation filed claims against the estate of Vincent J. Hagan for unpaid balances on promissory notes secured by first and second mortgages on real estate; the notes were not in default and would not fully mature until 1971. The executors answered that the claims should not be allowed because they were secured, no default had occurred, the estate was solvent, and federal law under the Federal Farm Loan Act provided for release upon the mortgagor's death. The trial court sustained demurrers to the answers and allowed the claims as debts not due. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state law permits filing and allowance of claims not yet due, that the mortgages represented debts arising during the decedent's lifetime, that the cited probate code section on investment of funds did not bar allowance, and that no assumption or release occurred under federal law in this case.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case concerns a conspiracy prosecution in which a defendant was convicted while charges against his alleged coconspirators were dismissed at the request of prosecutors. The majority affirmed the conviction. A specially concurring justice agrees with that result but disagrees with the majority's treatment of the issue in Division VI, reasoning that conspiracy requires at least two guilty parties and that legal authorities generally require acquittal of the remaining defendant when charges against all others are dismissed unless unknown persons are also alleged to be involved.

criminal law

This case concerns Iowa's Soldiers’ Preference Act and whether state auditors auditing public accounts hold confidential positions that would exempt them from veterans' hiring preferences in appointive government roles. The majority concluded that the positions involved a confidential relationship, but the dissent disagreed, reasoning that such a broad classification would effectively nullify the Act by covering most jobs beyond minor roles like janitors. The dissent distinguished the auditors—whose reports are public records submitted to the state auditor—from the head bookkeeper in Allen v. Wegman, who had direct access to cash and a high degree of mutual trust and dependency, and argued that the Act should be enforced as enacted to affirm the lower court's decision.

labor & employment

The case involved a challenge to the probate of Lewis A. Cocklin's will by his sister Fanny Watkins after his death, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by relatives. A jury upheld the will, and the trial court denied the contestant's request to open and close arguments to the jury. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the burden of proof on the issues submitted rested with the contestant under the evidence and instructions, consistent with precedent interpreting the relevant code section on argument order, and that other instructions and procedures showed no prejudicial error.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Otto Johannsen, an employee of a neighboring petroleum distributor, who was severely burned while attempting to shut off a gasoline pump at Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation's bulk plant after its employee negligently allowed a storage tank to overflow, spraying gasoline near an operating engine. Johannsen sued Mid-Continent and its employee for negligence, alleging their actions proximately caused his injuries. The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a directed verdict, the jury awarded $5,731 in damages, and the defendants appealed. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the evidence supported a finding of proximate cause from the negligence and that Johannsen's entry onto the property did not limit liability to wanton acts only.

torts & liability

This case involved a negligence claim arising from a May 1940 car accident in Iowa, where plaintiff Debuhr swerved to avoid defendant Taylor's car entering a highway from a lane and crashed, sustaining injuries. Taylor died before trial from unrelated causes, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, arguing error in a jury instruction that applied the no-eyewitness presumption of due care—typically used for contributory negligence—to the deceased defendant's conduct in determining negligence. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the instruction was improper, as the presumption does not apply to proving a defendant's negligence, and reversed the judgment.

torts & liability

The case involved a veteran's claim for back pay after being wrongfully discharged from a public position, in a proceeding under the Soldiers’ Preference Act seeking review via certiorari. The majority ruled that the veteran could not recover the salary he would have earned during the period of discharge and overruled prior precedent in Dickey v. King that had allowed such recovery. In dissent, the opinion argues that wrongful discharge alone entitles the veteran to compensation accruing during removal, as supported by general principles and analogous civil service reinstatement cases, and that denying back pay would undermine the legislative purpose of protecting veterans' wages from arbitrary loss of employment.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned a workers' compensation claim arising from a workplace injury that initially damaged the claimant's foot and later required a second amputation higher on the leg. The industrial commissioner and district court awarded additional compensation beyond the statutory schedule for foot loss, but the majority reversed that decision. The dissent agreed with the lower tribunals that the amputation removed more than a foot yet less than the two-thirds of the leg required for a full leg award under the 1939 Code, making paragraph 20 applicable to determine proportional extra weeks of benefits, as supported by the court's prior holding in Pappas v. North Iowa Brick & Tile Co.

labor & employment

The case involved Herman Burnstein, who in 1930 pleaded guilty in Marshall County, Iowa, to possessing and selling obscene literature and received a $500 fine (or five months in jail) with execution suspended after paying $50 upon the condition that he leave the county. In 1940, after returning to the county, Burnstein was arrested and twice sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the state was bound by the sentencing condition; the district court denied the writ and remanded him to custody. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to impose the removal condition because it improperly usurped the executive branch's pardon power, rendering the suspension a nullity and leaving the original sentence enforceable. The court relied on prior precedents establishing that such judicial suspensions of criminal judgments are invalid. Burnstein remained subject to the fine or imprisonment despite the earlier agreement.

criminal lawprocedure