Casady v. Bosler
This text of 11 Iowa 242 (Casady v. Bosler) 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.
Opinion
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]*245an 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Iowa 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casady-v-bosler-iowa-1860.