Carl B. Stiger

The case involved a challenge to a lease agreement between the Linn County Board of Supervisors and a private abstract company for space in the county courthouse basement. The court held that the board lacked the authority to rent public property for private commercial use absent specific legislative permission. The decision rested on the principle that courthouses are dedicated to public purposes, rendering such leases void and not subject to estoppel defenses based on prior agreements or reliance. The court also confirmed that quo warranto was the appropriate legal remedy for questioning the board's actions.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the proper construction of Clarence Wood's will and codicils in relation to his sister's estate, of which he had been executor. After Clarence misused about $8,000 in estate assets, his will directed that any deficiencies in Sarah Wood's bequests be covered from his own estate, but a later codicil made a $5,000 legacy to Etta Lee Shepherd a preferred bequest payable first regardless of other bequests. The trial court ruled that the codicil gave the Shepherd legacy priority over the deficiency payments, treating those payments as bequests under Clarence's will. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deficiency payments were not "bequests" within the meaning of the codicil because the will used different language for them and did not make Sarah's legatees into Clarence's legatees; restitution already made through a compromised claim further eliminated any remaining deficiencies attributable to the misuse.

propertyfamily law

This case involved a property owner suing the city of Des Moines and the Des Moines Electric Light Company for damage to his building caused by an obstructed sewer, with the plaintiff alleging negligence by both parties in permitting or maintaining a conduit that blocked the sewer. After a prior state court action and a separate federal suit against the city, the plaintiff settled with the city for $8,000 and executed a broad release discharging the city and all other persons or entities from claims related to the incident. The court dismissed the appeal against the electric company, holding that the release barred further recovery because both defendants were liable for the same indivisible injury, the plaintiff was entitled to only one satisfaction of his claim, and the settlement with one party responsible for the full damages released the other. The decision relied on precedents establishing that acceptance of payment in full from one jointly or severally liable party prevents additional suits for the same harm, regardless of whether the defendants acted in concert.

torts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claim filed by Joe Robinson, who sustained injuries in New York while soliciting subscriptions for a magazine published by Meredith Publishing Co. under a 1938 contract. The company raised multiple defenses, including that Robinson was an independent contractor rather than an employee and thus excluded from coverage under the Iowa Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court noted that the contract terms and solicitation methods were identical to those in a prior case, Meredith Publishing Co. v. Iowa Employment Security Comm., where the same company prevailed on the independent contractor issue. Relying on that precedent, the court held that Robinson was an independent contractor and affirmed the trial court's denial of the claim without reaching the other defenses.

labor & employment

The case involved a negligence lawsuit by plaintiff Lind, an employee injured when struck by a truck on a newly paved highway, against defendants Hallett Construction Company, truck owner Eddy, and driver Todd (a minor). The court held that Hallett was not liable because Eddy operated as an independent contractor hauling gravel, making Todd Eddy's employee rather than Hallett's, so respondeat superior did not apply. Eddy was liable under a statute imposing owner responsibility for consenting to the truck's use by Todd, regardless of any employment or agency relationship. The court affirmed the trial outcome as to Todd's liability for negligence and reversed the judgment against Hallett.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a challenge to the validity of a will executed by Mrs. Eiker in 1939, which left her home to one beneficiary and the bulk of her estate to Lyle Doan, a non-relative who served as her financial helper and executor. The contestant claimed the will resulted from undue influence by Doan, and the trial court submitted the issue to a jury, which found the will invalid. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that circumstantial evidence of Doan's ongoing control over the testatrix's affairs, combined with the will's terms favoring him, was sufficient to support the verdict even without direct proof of influence at the moment of execution. The court rejected arguments that declarations by the testatrix or comparisons to prior wills were improperly considered and upheld the ruling that the entire will was void.

family lawproperty

The case involved a negligence claim from a rear-end collision on a highway where the defendant's car stopped on the paved portion after a flat tire. The plaintiff was a passenger in the approaching car that struck it. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict for the defendant, ruling that the question of negligence under the relevant Iowa statutes was for the jury. The statutes barred stopping on the main traveled part of the highway when it was practical to stop off it, and the disabled-vehicle exception did not apply as a matter of law because evidence showed the car could have been moved to the shoulder without serious difficulty. Any negligence by the driver of the plaintiff's car was not an intervening cause superseding the defendant's conduct.

torts & liability

This case was a negligence action arising from a December 1940 head-on collision between the plaintiff's automobile and the defendant's semitrailer truck near a narrow bridge on an Iowa highway, in which both drivers had attempted to avoid meeting on the bridge itself. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries, the jury returned a $7,500 verdict, and the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff. On appeal the defendant argued that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for violating speed and control statutes and that the damages were excessive. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record did not compel a finding of contributory negligence because the plaintiff could assume the truck driver would obey the law by yielding half the roadway and because the jury could conclude his modest speed increase was reasonable under the circumstances to avoid the bridge; the court further held the damages instruction was not misleading and the verdict was supported by evidence of the plaintiff's serious and permanent injuries.

torts & liability

The case involved a wrongful death claim by the estate of Harold Rodefer, who was found unconscious at the bottom of an open freight elevator shaft in an unlit, L-shaped areaway behind buildings owned by the defendant Clinton Turner Verein; Rodefer had last been seen leaving the Midway Tavern around midnight and was apparently heading toward another tavern when he fell. The plaintiff alleged general negligence and relied on res ipsa loquitur, arguing the defendant had a duty to maintain the passageway and elevator safely. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Rodefer was a mere licensee using the corridor for his own convenience rather than an invitee, so the defendant owed him only a duty to avoid willful or wanton injury, which was not shown; passive acquiescence in occasional use by others did not elevate his status or create a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a wrongful death claim arising from a 1937 collision at a railroad crossing where the decedent's car, traveling at approximately 65 miles per hour, struck the defendant's train. The plaintiff alleged negligence by the railroad for failing to sound required whistle and bell signals at the statutory distance and other operational issues. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, holding that the evidence showed the signals were given closer to the crossing, the train crew had no duty to stop upon seeing the approaching car because they could assume the driver would stop, and the no-eyewitness rule did not apply due to direct evidence of the decedent's conduct. The court also noted the decedent failed to exercise reasonable care for his safety.

torts & liability

In City of Sioux City v. Betz, the appellee claimed title to a tract of land along the Missouri River under a 1938 state patent, while the appellant claimed ownership by adverse possession after filling roughly 100,000 yards of dirt into the river from 1922 to 1932 and using the resulting land for business purposes. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the ruling for the appellee, determining that the land lay below the high-water mark of a navigable river and therefore remained part of the state-owned riverbed at the time the patent issued. Adverse possession was neither proven nor available as a defense against the state. The court further rejected arguments that the land originated as railroad accretion or an abandoned channel, citing a lack of supporting evidence in the record.

property

In Lage v. Pottawattamie County, a landowner sued the counties after a borrow pit dug along an inter-county highway to raise the road cut through a drainage ditch, causing repeated flooding and silt deposits that damaged his farmland and reduced its value by $90 per acre. The plaintiff alleged this constituted a taking without compensation under a contract to sell borrow dirt and sought damages, while the defendants argued the contract barred further claims as in condemnation proceedings. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the petition, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract did not necessarily encompass all future damages from the flooding and that the case could proceed on the allegations of proximate harm from the work. The decision focused on contract interpretation rather than statutory drainage violations or eminent domain limits on public uses.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned whether approximately 73 bulk plants operated by Phillips Petroleum Company in Iowa under a wholesale-driver plan were subject to the state's Chain Store Tax Act, which imposes an occupation tax on businesses operating multiple stores from which goods are sold at retail. Following procedural history involving federal courts and abstention to allow state court resolution, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Phillips, holding that the tax did not apply. The court reasoned that the Act's definitions limit its scope to places where tangible goods are sold or kept for sale at retail and where the operator receives the retail profit, whereas the bulk plants functioned as storage depots for wholesale distribution without retail sales on the premises.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over the shelterhouse attendant position at the Des Moines municipal airport between plaintiff McMahon, a World War veteran appointed in 1940, and intervener Geyer, who had held the nonsupervisory role since 1936. The civil service commission ruled that Geyer retained the position with full rights under section 5695 of the 1939 Iowa Code because he had passed the required examination after serving on the date the statute took effect, and the city council rescinded McMahon's appointment accordingly. The trial court upheld this determination, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the council had authority to correct the appointment once Geyer's preferential rights were established and that the commission had jurisdiction over the appeal under section 5711. The court rejected McMahon's claim under the Soldiers' Preference Act, noting there was no vacancy when he was appointed. The opinion also addressed how amendments to the civil service statutes altered prior rules on examination requirements and appeal rights.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved an insurance dispute over coverage for damage to a truck in a collision, including repair costs, additional damage from freezing and theft after the accident, and storage fees. The policy limited liability to the lesser of actual cash value or repair costs with like kind and quality parts, and required the insured to protect the property from further loss. The court held that evidence of pre- and post-collision value was admissible but the jury properly followed the repair-cost measure; that the collision could be the proximate cause of later damage if the driver exercised due care, presenting a jury question; that the mitigation instruction was correct; and that the storage charge lacked supporting evidence. The judgment was affirmed on condition that plaintiffs remit $67 for storage.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between riparian landowners along the Missouri River in Iowa over ownership of a large bar of land formed by the river's eastward cutting from 1902 to 1927 and subsequent westward recession. Plaintiff Rupp claimed the bar as accretion land attached to his property, while defendant Kirk asserted title to part of it as a former island based on 1937 deeds and adverse possession. The court ruled that the bar belonged to Rupp, finding it had formed gradually through alluvial action from his high bank rather than as a separate island. It rejected Kirk's deed claims because the original land referenced had been washed away by the river, passing title to the state, and found insufficient evidence of adverse possession. The decision relied on testimony from engineers and longtime observers confirming the gradual formation process.

property

This case involved a negligence lawsuit by a pedestrian against the City of Davenport for injuries from slipping on an icy, snow-covered sidewalk that had not been cleared after a snowfall four days earlier. The plaintiff had safely walked the same path earlier in the day when the ice was softer and knew of a safer alternative route but chose this one to avoid neighbor complaints about her dog. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law, as her knowledge of the conditions did not establish imprudence and she took precautions like short steps, consistent with precedents allowing recovery where a traveler reasonably believes safe passage is possible. However, the court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff due to erroneous jury instructions that improperly tied the city's duty of care to a 10-hour removal period from a local ordinance and statute, which do not define the standard for municipal liability in such cases. The instructions risked confusing the jury on the actual negligence standard of reasonable diligence under the circumstances.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved an action by relators under Iowa Code section 1093 to remove defendant, a Wapello County supervisor, from office based on 18 charges of willful misconduct, corruption, and maladministration, primarily concerning a 1937 purchase of two stokers for the county home at an allegedly excessive price without competitive bidding. The court held that removal under the relevant statutes requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of willful intent and corrupt motives, rather than mere errors of judgment, and found the evidence insufficient to establish such misconduct on the surviving charges. It therefore affirmed the dismissal of the removal petition but reversed the trial court's award of costs, expenses, and attorney fees against the relators and their sureties, ruling instead that these must be taxed against the county under section 1111 unless the relators lacked reasonable cause. The decision emphasized that statutes on costs and bonds should be construed to avoid penalizing good-faith petitioners and reconciled sections 1093.1 and 1112 accordingly.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee who suffered a foot injury on the job, leading to an initial Chopart's amputation at the ankle and later a second amputation seven and a half inches below the knee to improve use of a prosthesis. The parties initially agreed to 125 weeks of compensation for loss of the foot under the schedule in Iowa Code section 1396(14), but the claimant sought additional weeks under subsection 20, arguing the higher amputation caused greater loss. The deputy industrial commissioner and trial court awarded 25 extra weeks, finding the total loss exceeded a foot but was less than a leg. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the injury affected only the foot, the first amputation fully addressed it with no infection or ongoing issues in the leg, and the second procedure was elective for better functionality rather than a direct result of the original injury, so no additional scheduled compensation was due. The decision relied on the statutory schedule distinguishing foot loss from leg loss and precedent that enhancements for prosthetics do not convert a foot injury into a compensable leg loss.

labor & employment

The case concerns claims by two related corporations, Adolf Gobel, Inc. and its subsidiary Gobel Company of Iowa (formerly Decker & Sons), against several of their directors for allegedly conspiring to breach fiduciary duties by obstructing negotiations to sell the subsidiary's stock or assets in order to acquire it at a depressed price or obtain excessive long-term employment contracts before a change in control. The defendants moved to strike the petition on grounds of misjoinder of actions and parties. The court held that the two causes of action were properly joined because they were cognizable in equity under Iowa statutes allowing united interests in equity to be pursued together, and that all participants in the alleged breach of trust, including non-directors who joined the conspiracy, could be held liable. The decision affirmed the lower court's ruling on the joinder issue.

business & regulatoryprocedure