Smith v. Hintrager

24 N.W. 744, 67 Iowa 109
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided October 7, 1885·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Adams, J.

The action for the malicious prosecution of which this action was brought was an action in equity, brought by this defendant against these plaintiffs, to quiet title to certain land of which this defendant claimed to be the holder of a tax deed. The action never came to a hearing, but was dismissed. It is not averred that these plaintiffs suffered in that action any loss, annoyance or inconvenience, except such as may be regarded as incident to every civil action and, such being the fact, it appears to us that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Wetmore v. Mellinger, 64 Iowa, 741.

Affirmed.

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

Smith v. Hintrager, 24 N.W. 744, 67 Iowa 109 (iowa 1885).

24 N.W. 744 (Smith v. Hintrager) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foley v. Argosy Gaming Co.
688 N.W.2d 244 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2004)
Aalfs v. Aalfs
66 N.W.2d 121 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)
Petrich v. McDonald
266 P.2d 1047 (Washington Supreme Court, 1954)
Johnson v. Walker-Smith Co.
142 P.2d 546 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1943)
Peterson v. Peregoy & Moore Co.
180 Iowa 325 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1917)
White v. International Text Book Co.
136 N.W. 121 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
Abbott v. Thorne
65 L.R.A. 826 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Gundermann v. Buschner
73 Ill. App. 180 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1898)
Rice & Gorum v. Day
51 N.W. 464 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1892)