State v. Gegner

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Gegner

56 N.W. 182, 88 Iowa 748

DecidedOctober 3, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 56 N.W. 182 (State v. Gegner) 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

State v. Gegner, 56 N.W. 182, 88 Iowa 748 (iowa 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Kinne, J.

This is an action in equity to enjoin a liquor nuisance claimed to have been maintained by the defendants. On the trial, and after the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court, on its own motion, dismissed the plaintiff’s petition, and denied the injunction. The only question presented by the appeal is as to whether, under the evidence introduced, the court was warranted in its action. Without setting out the evidence, we may say that it does not show that the defendants were maintaining a nuisance when this action was brought. The evidence of the reputed character of the place was conflicting. But one suspicious load of goods was shown to have been delivered at the defendant’s place, and the contents of it were not shown to be intoxicating liquors. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s bill. Affirmed,

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

Kinne, J.

This is an action in equity to enjoin a liquor nuisance claimed to have been maintained by the defendants. On the trial, and after the conclusion of the evidence for the plaintiff, the court, on its own motion, dismissed the plaintiff’s petition, and denied the injunction. The only question presented by the appeal is as to whether, under the evidence introduced, the court was warranted in its action. Without setting out the evidence, we may say that it does not show that the defendants were maintaining a nuisance when this action was brought. The evidence of the reputed character of the place was conflicting. But one suspicious load of goods was shown to have been delivered at the defendant’s place, and the contents of it were not shown to be intoxicating liquors. The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s bill. Affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.W. 182, 88 Iowa 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gegner-iowa-1893.