Everett v. Croskrey

Supreme Court of Iowa

Everett v. Croskrey

69 N.W. 1125, 101 Iowa 17

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJanuary 28, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 1125 (Everett v. Croskrey) 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

Everett v. Croskrey, 69 N.W. 1125, 101 Iowa 17 (iowa 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Ladd, J.

The issue tried was whether the defendant owned one-sixth of the land, as stated in the petition, or one-half thereof, as alleged in the answer. In other words, the title to one-third of the land was in dispute, and was adjudged to be in the plaintiffs. 92 Iowa, 333 (60 N. W. Rep. 732). Thereafter the [18]*18parties, by the execution of deeds, divided the lands, giving to each the portion awarded by the decree. The title, only, was contested, and no partition made by the court. In McClain v. McClain, 52 Iowa, 272 (3 N. W. Rep. 60), it is said: “While in form this is an action for partition, yet it is essentially an action to determine the title, which was in dispute. We do not think, in such a case, the fees of plaintiff’s attorneys should be taxed as part of the costs.” See also, Duncan v. Duncan, 63 Iowa, 150 (18 N. W. Rep. 858). The statutes contemplate the payment of plaintiff’s attorneys for services essential to the accomplishment of actual partition of the real estate, by all parties, in proportion to their interests. Attorney’s -fees, however, for services rendered in the determination of issues wherein the title to, or some interest in the property is in controversy, should not be allowed or taxed as part of the costs. — Reversed.

Kinne, C. J., took no part.

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

Ladd, J.

The issue tried was whether the defendant owned one-sixth of the land, as stated in the petition, or one-half thereof, as alleged in the answer. In other words, the title to one-third of the land was in dispute, and was adjudged to be in the plaintiffs. 92 Iowa, 333 (60 N. W. Rep. 732). Thereafter the [18]*18parties, by the execution of deeds, divided the lands, giving to each the portion awarded by the decree. The title, only, was contested, and no partition made by the court. In McClain v. McClain, 52 Iowa, 272 (3 N. W. Rep. 60), it is said: “While in form this is an action for partition, yet it is essentially an action to determine the title, which was in dispute. We do not think, in such a case, the fees of plaintiff’s attorneys should be taxed as part of the costs.” See also, Duncan v. Duncan, 63 Iowa, 150 (18 N. W. Rep. 858). The statutes contemplate the payment of plaintiff’s attorneys for services essential to the accomplishment of actual partition of the real estate, by all parties, in proportion to their interests. Attorney’s -fees, however, for services rendered in the determination of issues wherein the title to, or some interest in the property is in controversy, should not be allowed or taxed as part of the costs. — Reversed.

Kinne, C. J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 1125, 101 Iowa 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-croskrey-iowa-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack