Bloomer v. Glendy

30 N.W. 486, 70 Iowa 757
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided December 8, 1886·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Reed, J.

The complaint of the appellants in these cases is that the evidence introduced in the district court did not warrant the court in entering judgment for plaintiff. The defendants did not answer in either case. It is alleged in the petition in each case that, in a building which is specifically described, the defendants had established, and were maintaining, a place for the sale of intoxicating- liquors, contrary to the statutes of the state, and that in said building they kept such liquors for sale, contrary to law, and there sold the same unlawfully. These allegations, not being controverted, must be deemed true. Code, § 2712; Alexander v. Doran, 13 Iowa, 283; Singer Manuf'g Co. v. Billings, 39 Id., 347. The material facts upon which plaintiffs’ right of recovery depended being admitted, or, what amounts to the same thing, being uncontroverted, it was not necessary for them to introduce any evidence whatever.

Affirmed.

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

Bloomer v. Glendy, 30 N.W. 486, 70 Iowa 757 (iowa 1886).

30 N.W. 486 (Bloomer v. Glendy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Trusteeship of Boyd
4 N.W.2d 387 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1942)
Smith v. Tate
169 Iowa 680 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Sowles v. Martens
142 N.W. 442 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1913)
Wheelock v. Hull
100 N.W. 863 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Minear v. Hogg
63 N.W. 444 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1895)