Whitlock v. Norris

Supreme Court of Iowa

Whitlock v. Norris

250 N.W. 734, 218 Iowa 1066

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedOctober 23, 1934

DocketNo. 42685.

StatusPublished

This text of 250 N.W. 734 (Whitlock v. Norris) 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

Whitlock v. Norris, 250 N.W. 734, 218 Iowa 1066 (iowa 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans,'J.

In view of our conclusion that the judgment must be reversed and remanded for another trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence. We think that the evidence introduced made a case for the jury. The contract, being oral, lacked formality. But the fair inference might be drawn from the conversation that the drilling records had substantial value for the defendant when he became owner of the land. He himself was a prospector and engaged in the development of mines and became so engaged upon the *1068 Hardin land. We do not think it can be said conclusively that defendant promised a mere gratuity as distinguished from a consideration.

The judgment below is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded to the district court.- — Reversed and remanded.

Mitchell, C. J., and Kindig, Albert, and Donegan, JJ., concur.

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

Evans,'J.

In view of our conclusion that the judgment must be reversed and remanded for another trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence. We think that the evidence introduced made a case for the jury. The contract, being oral, lacked formality. But the fair inference might be drawn from the conversation that the drilling records had substantial value for the defendant when he became owner of the land. He himself was a prospector and engaged in the development of mines and became so engaged upon the *1068 Hardin land. We do not think it can be said conclusively that defendant promised a mere gratuity as distinguished from a consideration.

The judgment below is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded to the district court.- — Reversed and remanded.

Mitchell, C. J., and Kindig, Albert, and Donegan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 N.W. 734, 218 Iowa 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitlock-v-norris-iowa-1934.