Kreck v. Pitzelberger
This text of 19 N.W. 874 (Kreck v. Pitzelberger) 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.
Opinion
The note, and the mortgage given to secure the same, being in the possession of the defendants, the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show by a preponderance oí the evidence that they were not delivered, and that, therefore, the mortgage never was a valid instrument. A careful examination of the evidence leads us to the [109]*109conclusion that the district court correctly found that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a decree for the plaintiff. ¥e think that the finding, that the plaintiff did not establish the allegation that part of the consideration, of the mortgage was for intoxicating liquors unlawfully sold, is also correct. "VVe need not set out or discuss the evidence.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 N.W. 874, 64 Iowa 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kreck-v-pitzelberger-iowa-1884.