Barlow v. McKinley

24 Iowa 69
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 28, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 24 Iowa 69 (Barlow v. McKinley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barlow v. McKinley, 24 Iowa 69 (iowa 1867).

Opinion

Cole, J.

But two questions are presented by the transcript:

1. Is the right of way for a railroad an incumbrance ? An incumbrance is defined to be a right in a third person in the land in question, to the diminution of the value of the land, though consistent with the passing of the fee by the deed of conveyance. Bouv. Law Die. A public highway is held to be an incumbrance in all the New England States. Rawle on Cov. for Title, pages 115 to 120, and authorities cited in the notes. As to the right of way for a railroad being an incumbrance, see opinion of Redeield, J., in Butler v. Gale (1 Williams [Vt.] 742), and see same case as to remedy for covenantor when such incumbrance was considered and allowed for in the sale, etc. Whether a public highway is an incumbrance in this State we need not now decide; but upon both principle and authority we hold, that a right of way for a railroad is an incumbrance.

2. Oan a party recover upon a covenant against incumbrances, when he had full knowledge of the existence of the incumbrance at the time he accepted the covenant? This point was decided in the affirmative by this court in Van Wagner v. Van Nostrand (19 Iowa, 422), following [71]*71the weight of authority. See the cases there cited. With that decision we are still content.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

R. H. Gore v. General Properties Corporation
6 So. 2d 837 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1942)
Barth v. Benson
291 P. 474 (Washington Supreme Court, 1930)
Schiltz v. Ferguson
231 N.W. 358 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Frankel v. Blank
213 N.W. 597 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Schafroth v. Ross
289 F. 703 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
McDonald v. Ward
169 P. 851 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Horn v. Phillips
167 Iowa 169 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Sandum v. Johnson
142 N.W. 878 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1913)
First Unitarian Society v. Citizens Savings & Trust Co.
142 N.W. 87 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Westerlund v. Black Bear Mining Co.
203 F. 599 (Eighth Circuit, 1913)
Grow v. Taylor
137 N.W. 451 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Stuhr v. Butterfield
130 N.W. 897 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1911)
Flood v. Graham
61 Fla. 207 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1911)
Newburn v. Lucas
101 N.W. 730 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Harrison v. Des Moines & Ft. Dodge Railway Co.
58 N.W. 1081 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)
Burr v. Lamaster
9 L.R.A. 637 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)
Pilcher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad
38 Kan. 516 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
Burk v. Hill
48 Ind. 52 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Stambaugh v. Smith
23 Ohio St. (N.S.) 584 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1873)
Kellogg v. Malin
50 Mo. 496 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Iowa 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-mckinley-iowa-1867.