case comes within rule in Iowa

1986As this court stated in Hart v. Stence, 219 Iowa 55, 59 , 257 N.W. 434, 436 , “We have also held that where the ruling upon a motion for a new trial presents a pure question of law, there is no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court, and that the abuse of discretion lodged in the trial court, under such circumstances, will be reviewed by this court, and the ruling of the trial court reversed if found to be erroneous.” Here the court erred as to a matter of law in considering an alleged error in an instruction not raised by exception, contrary to the express proscrip

1986As this court stated in Hart v. Stence, 219 Iowa 55, 59 , 257 N.W. 434, 436 , “We have also held that where the ruling upon a motion for a new trial presents a pure question of law, there is no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court, and that the abuse of discretion lodged in the trial court, under such circumstances, will be reviewed by this court, and the ruling of the trial court reversed if found to be erroneous.” Here the court erred as to a matter of law in considering an alleged error in an instruction not raised by exception, contrary to the express proscrip

1988Id. at 6 .

1978As this court stated in Hart v. Stence, 219 Iowa 55, 59 , 257 N.W. 434, 436 , “We have also held that where the ruling upon a motion for a new trial presents a pure question of law, there is no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court, and that the abuse of discretion lodged in the trial court, under such circumstances, will be reviewed by this court, and the ruling of the trial court reversed if found to be erroneous.” Here the court erred as to a matter of law in considering an alleged error in an instruction not raised by exception, contrary to the express proscrip

1951Co. v. McVay, 232 Iowa 469 , 5 N.W.2d 817 .

1951Co. v. McVay, 232 Iowa 469 , 5 N.W.2d 817 .

1938In view of the further evidence that the appellee has no other property, that he has not lived upon the land since prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action, and that there is no basis on which to predicate any substantial increase in the value of the land or any other source from which he could hope to pay the indebtedness, we think this case comes within the rule announced in Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Wilmarth, 218 Iowa 339 , 252 N. W. 507 , 94 A. L.

1938In view of the further evidence that the appellee has no other property, that he has not lived upon the land since prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action, and that there is no basis on which to predicate any substantial increase in the value of the land or any other source from which he could hope to pay the indebtedness, we think this case comes within the rule announced in Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Wilmarth, 218 Iowa 339 , 252 N. W. 507 , 94 A. L.

1928Bank, 193 Iowa 608 ; Andrew v. State Bank of Dexter, 204.

1922It is contended that the bequest to the appellant corporation was to said corporation merely as a trustee, and that the case comes within the rule of Rine v. Wagner, 135 Iowa 626 .

1919An earlier case is cited by appellant, Kilbourne, J. & Co. v. Jennings & Co., 38 Iowa 533 , to the point that the contract between the owner and contractor is binding, and that the owner is not liable beyond the terms of his contract.

1919Appellant contends that the case comes within the rule of a line of cases such as Stewart & Hayden v. Wright, 52 Iowa 335 , and they cite that case and other similar later cases.

1919We think this case comes within the rule, rather, of Stiles v. Breed, 151 Iowa 86 ; Horner v. Maxwell, 171 Iowa 660 ; and Bird v. Jacobus, 113 Iowa 194 .

1919We think this case comes within the rule, rather, of Stiles v. Breed, 151 Iowa 86 ; Horner v. Maxwell, 171 Iowa 660 ; and Bird v. Jacobus, 113 Iowa 194 .

1919We think this case comes within the rule, rather, of Stiles v. Breed, 151 Iowa 86 ; Horner v. Maxwell, 171 Iowa 660 ; and Bird v. Jacobus, 113 Iowa 194 .

1908We think the case comes within the rule of State v. Bair, 92 Iowa, 28 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907District v. Ind. District, 72 Iowa, 687 ; Farley v. Geisheker, 78 Iowa, 454 ; Geyer v. Douglass, 85 Iowa, 93 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907District v. Ind. District, 72 Iowa, 687 ; Farley v. Geisheker, 78 Iowa, 454 ; Geyer v. Douglass, 85 Iowa, 93 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1907McCormick v. Molberg, 46 Iowa, 561 ; Gulliher v. Railway Co., 59 Iowa, 416 ; McKinney v. Herrick, 66 Iowa, 414 ; Railway Co. v. Cox, 76 Iowa, 306 ; Wallace v. Railway Co., 67 Iowa, 547 ; Jenkins v. Clyde Coal Co., 82 Iowa, 618 ; Reid Co. v. Bradley, 105 Iowa, 220 ; Bonnot v. Newman, 108 Iowa, 158 ; Bannister v. McIntyre, 112 Iowa, 600 ; Insurance Co. v. Lemmon, 117 Iowa, 691 .

1904I concur in the result announced in the foregoing opinion, but do not agree in the thought that the sixth paragraph of the will is void for repugnancy, or that this case comes within the rule of Meyer v. Weiler, 121 Iowa, 51 .

1900It seems to us the case comes within the rule and reasoning of Schoonover v. Osborne, 108 Iowa, 453 , in which we said: “A rule never to be lost sight of in determining the'liability of a surety or guarantor is that ho is a favorite of the law, and has a right to stand on the strict terms of his obligation, when such terms are ascertained.

1897Nor do we think it can be said that the case comes within the rule stated in Michel v. Walraven, 92 Iowa, 423 (60 N. W.

1891Cross v. Railroad, 51 Iowa, 683 , and Kearney v. Ferguson, 50 Iowa, 72 .