Joyce v. Alliel

Supreme Court of Iowa

Joyce v. Alliel

34 N.W. 613, 72 Iowa 760

DecidedOctober 19, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 34 N.W. 613 (Joyce v. Alliel) 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

Joyce v. Alliel, 34 N.W. 613, 72 Iowa 760 (iowa 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevers, J.

The defendant is the owner of the real estate in controversy, and the plaintiff claims that he purchased it of her through her agents, Brown & Robbins. The only question to be determined is whether Brown & Robbins were authorized by the defendant to make the sale upon the terms and conditions they did, and we think there is a clear preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff’s theory. Both Brown and Robbins testify that they were so authorized, and their evidence as to certain declarations of the defendant made afterwards, which tend to show that she personally was willing to execute the deed, is corroborated by the evidence of more than one witness. There is nothing in the evidence or conduct of Brown & Rob-bids disclosed in the record which will warrant us in disbelieving them. The defendant was a witness in her own behalf, but we cannot accept her evidence as true, and reject that of two credible witnessses who testify affirmatively that they were authorized to make the sale.

Affirmed.

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

Seevers, J.

The defendant is the owner of the real estate in controversy, and the plaintiff claims that he purchased it of her through her agents, Brown & Robbins. The only question to be determined is whether Brown & Robbins were authorized by the defendant to make the sale upon the terms and conditions they did, and we think there is a clear preponderance of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff’s theory. Both Brown and Robbins testify that they were so authorized, and their evidence as to certain declarations of the defendant made afterwards, which tend to show that she personally was willing to execute the deed, is corroborated by the evidence of more than one witness. There is nothing in the evidence or conduct of Brown & Rob-bids disclosed in the record which will warrant us in disbelieving them. The defendant was a witness in her own behalf, but we cannot accept her evidence as true, and reject that of two credible witnessses who testify affirmatively that they were authorized to make the sale.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.W. 613, 72 Iowa 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joyce-v-alliel-iowa-1887.