Broquet v. Sterling

9 N.W. 301, 56 Iowa 357
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 15, 1881·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

9 N.W. 301 (Broquet v. Sterling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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