County of Kossuth v. Wallace

15 N.W. 305, 60 Iowa 508
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedMarch 23, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 305 (County of Kossuth v. Wallace) 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
County of Kossuth v. Wallace, 15 N.W. 305, 60 Iowa 508 (iowa 1883).

Opinion

Day, Ch. J.

Section 1873 of the Code, which was in force at the time the mortgage in question was executed, provides that in suits to foreclose a school-fund mortgage “the court shall give the plaintiff, as a part of the costs, such an amount as will be a sufficient compensation for the plaintifi’s attorney in the case.”

By an act of the Eighteenth General Assembly, which took effect by publication on the 3d day of March, 1880, this section was amended by adding the following: “But in no case to exceed ten per cent on the amount for which judgment is rendered; and in no case to exceed the sum of twenty-five dollars.” Chapter 12, Laws Eighteenth General Assembly, section 5. The appellant contends that this provision cannot apply to a school-fund mortgage executed prior to its passage, as it would, if allowed such application, impair the obligation of contracts. The change in the statute pertains to a mere question of costs, and prescribes a limit which the court shall not * transcend in the assessment of costs. The change, we think, does not impair the obligation of the contract, but merely affects the remedy. Statutes may constitutionally be enacted changing the remedy existing when the contract was made, if they preserve the existing remedies in substance, and with integrity, and do not destroy or embarrass the remedies [510]*510existing when the contract was made, so as substantially to defeat the rights of the creditor. See McCormick, v. Rusch, 15 Iowa, 127. We think it cannot be claimed that a law merely limiting the amount of costs recoverable so affects the remedy as substantially to defeat the rights of the creditor. In our opinion, a negative answer must be returned to the question certified for our determination.

Aeeirmed.

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

Related

Xanadu of Cocoa Beach, Inc. v. Lenz
504 So. 2d 518 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Cutter Flying Service, Inc. v. Straughan Chevrolet, Inc.
459 P.2d 350 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1969)
Penrose v. Commercial Travelers Insurance Co.
275 P.2d 969 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1954)
Murphy v. George Brown & Co.
103 A. 28 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1918)
Monteleone v. Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins.
52 So. 1032 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)
United States v. Merriam
2 D. Haw. 431 (D. Hawaii, 1906)
Rauen v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
106 N.W. 198 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Wooster v. Bateman
102 N.W. 521 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)
Galusha v. Wendt
87 N.W. 512 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Allerton v. Monona County
82 N.W. 922 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1900)
Iowa Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Heidt
43 L.R.A. 689 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1899)
State v. Dorland
75 N.W. 654 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.W. 305, 60 Iowa 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-kossuth-v-wallace-iowa-1883.