TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Haywood & Son v. O'Brien

Haywood & Son v. O'Brien, 3 N.W. 545 (Iowa 1879)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 8, 1879
Judges
Seevers
Citations
3 N.W. 54552 Iowa 537
Cited by 6
Headnotes
1. Landlord and Tenant: assignment op lease: attachment. The-assignment of a lease of real estate is valid, and vests 'the assignee with all the rights’of the landlord, including the right to an attachment for-non-payment of rent.
Summary
Appeal from Gtinton District Oourt. The petition states that Robert' Huffman, by an instrument' in writing, leased certain premises to the defendants for a. term of years, the rent to be paid annually in money, and that the lease had been assigned to the plaintiffs. The rent being-unpaid, the plaintiffs asked that a landlord’s attachment be-issued, which was done, and certain property of the defendants attached. The defendants moved the court to quash the attachment on the grounds, in substance, that the lease was not assignable, and that the relation of landlord and tenant did. not exist between plaintiffs and the defendant. The motion, was overruled, and,the defendants appeal.

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

Opinion of the Court — Seevers

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

Seevers, J.

i. landlord assignment’of mend — It was held in Lufkin da Wilson v. Preston,. cmte, page 235, that leases like the one in question were-assignable, and that the assignee was entitled thereunder to the rent. This being true, we think it follows that the assignee is entitled to a writ. *538 of attachment, as provided by statute. The assignment of the lease carried with it the lien of the lessor, and all the remedies for its enforcement.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1896: 11909: 11913: 11915: 11925: 11930: 118962026peak 1896 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Riddle v. Dow32 L.R.A. 811 (Iowa 1896)
  2. Keim v. Myers89 N.E. 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Northcutt v. Hume174 S.W. 974 (Tex. App. 1915)
  4. Moore v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad142 N.W. 152 (Minn. 1913)
  5. Pitts v. Exchange National Bank233 P. 114 (Kan. 1925)
  6. Burket v. Commissioner18 B.T.A. 1062 (B.T.A. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Burket v. Commissioner18 B.T.A. 1062 (B.T.A. 1930)
  2. Pitts v. Exchange National Bank233 P. 114 (Kan. 1925)
  3. Northcutt v. Hume174 S.W. 974 (Tex. App. 1915)
  4. Moore v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad142 N.W. 152 (Minn. 1913)
  5. Keim v. Myers89 N.E. 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)
  6. Riddle v. Dow32 L.R.A. 811 (Iowa 1896)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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