TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. City of Des Moines

Jones v. The City of Des Moines

Jones v. City of Des Moines, 43 Iowa 209 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 25, 1876
Judges
Day
Citations
43 Iowa 209
Headnotes
1. Conveyance: dower: husband and wife. A deed in which the wife joins in the granting clause and covenants operates, under the statute of this State, to convey all the estate of the wife in the property conveyed, including her right of dower.
Summary
Appeal from Polk District Court. In January, 1854, Lewis Jones conveyed about one hundred and twenty acres of land, now situate within the limits of the city of Des Moines, to the defendant'Whitman. His wife, Martha Jones, the plaintiff, joined in the execution of the deed, and in the granting and covenanting clauses thereof, the execution of which was duly acknowledged by both husband and wife, and the acknowledgment was duly certified. The deed did not expressly state that Martha Jones relinquished her dower in the premises. Portions of the land have since been conveyed by Whitman to the other defendants. Lewis Jones died in April, 1875. His widow, Martha, now claims her dower in fee simple in the lands conveyed, and brings her action for a partition of the samé. The defendant, Whitman, answers, setting out a copy of his deed and claiming that thereby the plaintiff conveyed her dower interest in the land, and that by her deed she is bound and estopped from setting up her claim of dower. The other defendants, claiming under Whitman, make substantially the same answers. To these answers the plaintiff demurs. The court overruled the demurrer. Plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Day

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Day, J.

The precise question was determined, and determined, as we think, correctly, in Edwards v. Sullivan, 20 Iowa, 502 . Appellant, however, claims that this case has been overruled by the subsequent one of Richmond v. Tibbles and Husband, 26 Iowa, 474 . We are not able to discover any inconsistency between the two cases. Following the former of these cases, the judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 11915: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Tolerton168 Iowa 677 (1915)
  2. Weaver v. Chicago & N. W. Railway Co.124 N.W. 1088 (Iowa 1910)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Tolerton168 Iowa 677 (1915)
  2. Weaver v. Chicago & N. W. Railway Co.124 N.W. 1088 (Iowa 1910)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Richmond v. Tibbles, 26 Iowa 474 (1868) 5
Edwards v. Sullivan, 20 Iowa 502 (1866) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list