Barthol v. Blakin

34 Iowa 452
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided July 25, 1872·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Beck, Ch. J.

The demurrer was properly overruled. The language of the petition, avering that the mortgage was “ duly assigned to the plaintiff,” does not necessarily imply that it was transferred by writing. It may have been assigned verbally, and plaintiff’s title thereto and right to maintain the action, under such a transfer, would have been undoubted. Moore v. Lowry, 25 Iowa, 336; Creighton v. Gordon, Morris, 41; Jones v. Witter, 13 Mass. 304; Briggs v. Dorr, 19 Johns. 95; 1 Pars. on Cont. 197, and authorities cited; Rev., § 2757.

The language of the pleading above quoted will be liberally construed, and not most strongly against the pleader. As it is general in its terms, and is sufficient to cover an oral transfer, or an assignment by delivery, it may be so taken. Rev., § 2951.

If the petition was defective because it failed to state whether the assignment was in writing or oral; it should have been assailed by motion. ’Rev., § 2948.

Affirmed.

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

Barthol v. Blakin, 34 Iowa 452 (iowa 1872).

34 Iowa 452 (Barthol v. Blakin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of Erin v. Houston County
6 Tenn. App. 638 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1928)
Seymour v. Aultman
80 N.W. 401 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
Robbins v. Klein, Lichtenstader & Co.
60 Ohio St. (N.S.) 199 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1899)
Howe & Co. v. Jones
57 Iowa 130 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1881)
Warnock v. Richardson
50 Iowa 450 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1879)