Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hill & Brother

Supreme Court of Iowa

Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hill & Brother

51 Iowa 696

DecidedJune 9, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 51 Iowa 696 (Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hill & Brother) 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

Minneapolis Harvester Works v. Hill & Brother, 51 Iowa 696 (iowa 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Seevers, J.

— There was no finding of facts made by the court below. That the plaintiff at one time owned the property there is no doubt. The real controversy is whether one Bartleson was the agent of the plaintiff and had the power and authority to sell the property, and if so, whether the defendants purchased the property of him, as such agent, in the usual course of business. • To say the least, the evidence was conflicting. The [697]*697finding cannot be said to be so against the evidence as to warrant the conclusion that it was the result of either passion or prejudice.

Areihmed.

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

Seevers, J.

— There was no finding of facts made by the court below. That the plaintiff at one time owned the property there is no doubt. The real controversy is whether one Bartleson was the agent of the plaintiff and had the power and authority to sell the property, and if so, whether the defendants purchased the property of him, as such agent, in the usual course of business. • To say the least, the evidence was conflicting. The [697]*697finding cannot be said to be so against the evidence as to warrant the conclusion that it was the result of either passion or prejudice.

Areihmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Iowa 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minneapolis-harvester-works-v-hill-brother-iowa-1879.