William H. Seevers

In Mitchell v. Kepler, the plaintiff sued on covenants in an 1873 deed for real estate, alleging the defendant and his wife were not seized of the premises and lacked authority to convey them. The court noted that covenants of seizin and right to convey are synonymous and are breached immediately if the grantor does not own the land at conveyance. Because the action was not filed until 1884, more than ten years after the deed, the court concluded it was barred by the statute of limitations under Code section 2529 and affirmed the district court's judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a property owner's suit to recover taxes paid under protest to the City of Burlington on land used solely for agricultural purposes that received no municipal benefits. The court held that the taxes were not lawfully imposed and could be recovered by the plaintiff. It reasoned that the abstract and evidence supported a finding that the property was not taxable for city purposes, that payment under protest permitted recovery under prior precedent, and that allowing such a recovery did not create an indebtedness prohibited by the state constitution's debt limit because the obligation was involuntary rather than arising from a voluntary contract between the parties.

taxespropertyprocedure

In Hunter v. Waynick, two partners operated a retail grocery business, and one partner sold all the partnership property to a third party for $8,000 without the knowledge or consent of the other partner, who resided about 75 miles away. The non-selling partner and the partnership creditors sought to set aside the sale on grounds that it was fraudulent and that the selling partner lacked authority to dispose of the entire business. The court held that the sale must be invalidated because one partner does not have the power to sell all partnership assets without consulting the other when communication via daily mail and telegraph was feasible and no urgent necessity required an immediate transaction. It applied the precedent from Loeb v. Pierpoint, noting that the distant partner could have been readily consulted and was informed of the sale shortly afterward. The ruling was affirmed.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over liability on a promissory note where the plaintiff and defendant (a member of the firm Brown, Campbell & Gould) had endorsed the note after the maker, Henry W. Lee. The plaintiff paid a judgment on the note and sued the defendant, arguing that the order of endorsements created a contract of indemnity enforceable against the defendant. The defendant contended that the parties were co-sureties, limiting recovery to a contribution action subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The trial court allowed parol evidence to establish that the parties were joint sureties despite the endorsement sequence, and the Iowa Supreme Court presumed this factual finding in support of the judgment while applying the rule that such evidence is admissible to show the actual relationship between endorsers. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding the action barred by the statute of limitations.

business & regulatoryprocedure