Broquet v. Sterling

9 N.W. 301, 56 Iowa 357
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 N.W. 301 (Broquet v. Sterling) 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
Broquet v. Sterling, 9 N.W. 301, 56 Iowa 357 (iowa 1881).

Opinion

Rothrook, J.

l. practice : deem from costs. I. The plaintiff claims that having made the offer to redeem at the time he filed his amendment attacking the tax title, and having succeeded in defeating the title, he should not be required to pay the costs of the trial on that issue. Under the rule established in Springer v. Bartle, 46 Iowa, 688, the position of the plaintiff is correct. After the offer to redeem was made the defendant ought not to be allowed to try the validity of the tax title, and, upon the failing in the action, recover costs.

. from tax sale: Uen‘ II. It is next claimed that the amount paid in redemption should have been made a lien on the land, hn this also the plaintiff is correct. Strong v. Burdick, 52 Iowa, 630.

Reversed.

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

Related

Guldner v. Guldner
203 N.W. 289 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Macomb v. Prentis
44 N.W. 324 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 N.W. 301, 56 Iowa 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broquet-v-sterling-iowa-1881.