Casady v. Bosler

11 Iowa 242
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided December 6, 1860·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Wright, J.

I. Complainants appeal from the order of the District Court dissolving an injunction obtained by them to stay the sale of certain real estate under a trust deed. The action of the court was warranted by the following cases: Stringham v. Brown, 7 Iowa 33; Sloan v. Coolbaugh, 10 Ib. 31; Johnson, v. Triggs, 4 G. Greene, 99; Freeman v. Fleming, 5 Ib. 461, and Mohn v. Stoner, ante. And see Story on Cont. section 635; 5 Johns. Ch. 122; 18 Conn. 18; Story’s Eq. Jur. section 301 and note 1.

II. An offer to pay a particular sum of money, without producing the same, as provided for in section 1816, Rev. of 1860, must be in writing. If not in writing, the necessity, as a general rule, for such production is not dispensed with.

III. As to when this court will interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below, in dissolving or continuing. [245] an injunction, see Shricker v. Field, 9 Iowa, 366.

Decree affirmed.

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

Casady v. Bosler, 11 Iowa 242 (iowa 1860).

11 Iowa 242 (Casady v. Bosler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Myrah v. Dana
202 N.W. 748 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Traer v. Lucas Prospecting Co.
99 N.W. 290 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
Goldfrank, Frank & Co. v. Young
64 Tex. 432 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)
Shugart & Lininger v. Pattee
37 Iowa 422 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1873)