Hunt v. Winkel

Supreme Court of Iowa

Hunt v. Winkel

8 N.W. 484, 55 Iowa 623

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedApril 7, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 N.W. 484 (Hunt v. Winkel) 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

Hunt v. Winkel, 8 N.W. 484, 55 Iowa 623 (iowa 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Rothrook, J.

r vbactice : pleading.' The plaintiff does not complain that the written agreement in question is unconscionable, nor that it is in any respect illegal and not binding upon him. Upon the contrary he bases his right to the possession of the machine upon the contract. By its terms he had not the right of possession, and could maintain no action therefor without a tender of the amount due thei’eon. Having failed to allege such tender, the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained.

Reversed.

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

Rothrook, J.

r vbactice : pleading.' The plaintiff does not complain that the written agreement in question is unconscionable, nor that it is in any respect illegal and not binding upon him. Upon the contrary he bases his right to the possession of the machine upon the contract. By its terms he had not the right of possession, and could maintain no action therefor without a tender of the amount due thei’eon. Having failed to allege such tender, the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.W. 484, 55 Iowa 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-winkel-iowa-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack