Hall v. Hall

129 N.W. 960, 150 Iowa 277
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedFebruary 14, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 129 N.W. 960 (Hall v. Hall) 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
Hall v. Hall, 129 N.W. 960, 150 Iowa 277 (iowa 1911).

Opinion

Siierwin, C. J.

In the fall of 1908 the plaintiff purchased at referee’s sale á farm belonging to the estate of A. M. Golliday, -deceased. At the time of the sale the farm was in possession of tenants whose leases did not expire until the 1st of March, 1909, and the rent was unpaid. The defendant thereafter collected the rent for the estate, and this action was brought to recover the same. No reservation of the rent or of the right of possession was made in the deed, and the appellant relies upon the propositions that at the time of the sale to.her the rent had not accrued, and that, not being reserved in the deed, it passed to her. It is a well-settled rule that unaccrued rent passes to the purchaser unless it is reserved. Hatfield v. Lockwood, 18 Iowa, 296; Van Driel v. Rosierz, 26 Iowa, 575; Winn v. Murehead, 52 Iowa, 64. But it is equally well established by the authorities that rent belongs to the person entitled to the possession of the premises when it becomes due. The right to possession and the right to lease necessarily involve the right to recover the rent reserved by the lease. 24 Oyc. 1172; Fisk v. Brayman, 21 R. I. 195 (42 Atl. 878); 1 Warvelle on Vendors (2d ed.), sec-' tion 180; American Investment Co. v. Farrar, 87 Iowa, 437. As we have said, the deed made no reservation, but it was shown by the testimony of the witnesses for both parties that at the sale the possession of the premises was reserved until the 1st of March following. This testimony was received without objection, and it is now too late for the appellant to contend that it was incompetent. Canfield Lumber Co. v. Kint Lumber Co., 148 Iowa, 207; Bank v. Snyder, 79 Iowa, 191.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Watts v. Farmers National Co.
146 N.W.2d 279 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1966)
First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. Ingels
251 N.W. 630 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1933)
Kerr v. Horn
232 N.W. 494 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. Ogle
221 N.W. 537 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1928)
Scott v. Habinck
192 Iowa 1213 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)
Bennett v. Kroger
192 Iowa 411 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Clark v. Strohbeen
190 Iowa 989 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1921)
Nelson v. Tracy
184 Iowa 1118 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1918)
Johnson v. Siedel
178 Iowa 244 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Iowa Railroad Land Co. v. Estate of Boyle
154 Iowa 249 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 N.W. 960, 150 Iowa 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-hall-iowa-1911.