salutary rule in Iowa

1940Santo v. State, 2 Iowa 165 ; State v. Fairmont Cr.

1921Santo v. State, 2 Iowa 165 ; State v. Fairmont Cr.

2017In the absence of such a salutary exception to the parol evidence rule, it would be virtually impossible to establish the grounds relied on.”). “[T]he concern in reformation is not if the contract is ambiguous—as the issue is not one of interpretation—it is whether the contract ‘reflect[s] the real agreement of the parties.’” Nationwide, 882 N.W.2d at 522 (quoting Kufer v. Carson, 230 N.W.2d 500, 503 (Iowa 1975)).

1978He sought to show the alleged agreement above referred to, a pact we held in Anthony, supra, 204 N.W.2d at 834 , to be “invalid for any purpose.” Enforcement of such alleged agreements through the equitable estoppel doctrine only would frustrate the salutary rule of Anthony in every such situation.

1978He sought to show the alleged agreement above referred to, a pact we held in Anthony, supra, 204 N.W.2d at 834 , to be “invalid for any purpose.” Enforcement of such alleged agreements through the equitable estoppel doctrine only would frustrate the salutary rule of Anthony in every such situation.

1972In the absence of such a salutary exception to the parol evidence rule, it would be virtually impossible to establish the grounds relied on. 45 Am.Jur., Reformation of Instruments, section 113, page 650; 3 Corbin on Contracts, section 580, page 431, 437; Restatement, Contracts, section 238, page 333-334; 13 Williston on Contracts (Third Ed. — Jaeger), section 1552, page 210; Reed v. Harvey, 253 Iowa 10, 22 , 110 N.W.2d 442, 449 (1961); Schmidt v. Schurke, 238 Iowa 121, 124 , 25 N.W.2d 876 , 878 (1947); Olsen v. Olsen, 236 Iowa 313, 317 , 18 N.W.2d 602, 604 (1945).

1972Cf. Gordon v. Witthauer, 258 Iowa 617 , 138 N.W.2d 918 (1965).

1972Cf. Gordon v. Witthauer, 258 Iowa 617 , 138 N.W.2d 918 (1965).

1956In Jensen v. Phippen, 225 Iowa 302, 303 , 280 N.W. 528, 529 , we wisely admonished that the rule we are presently discussing “is, of necessity, applied according to the peculiar circumstances of the particular case where the question arises.” It is a salutary rule, designed to safeguard the weak from even the unconscious selfishness of the strong.

1956In Jensen v. Phippen, 225 Iowa 302, 303 , 280 N.W. 528, 529 , we wisely admonished that the rule we are presently discussing “is, of necessity, applied according to the peculiar circumstances of the particular case where the question arises.” It is a salutary rule, designed to safeguard the weak from even the unconscious selfishness of the strong.

1953But it is no reason for disturbing the settled and salutary rule that appellate courts shall not devote time and labor to moot questions.” This decision was. followed in Manning v. Heath, 206 Iowa 952, 956 , 221 N.W. 560, 561 , which cites various authorities in support of the rule “that the appeal should be dismissed where the matter in controversy, such as the right of possession of real estate, has become moot by reason of the lapse of time, and there. is nothing involved, except the matter of costs.” We reaffirm that doctrine.- — Appeal dismissed.

1953But it is no reason for disturbing the settled and salutary rule that appellate courts shall not devote time and labor to moot questions.” This decision was. followed in Manning v. Heath, 206 Iowa 952, 956 , 221 N.W. 560, 561 , which cites various authorities in support of the rule “that the appeal should be dismissed where the matter in controversy, such as the right of possession of real estate, has become moot by reason of the lapse of time, and there. is nothing involved, except the matter of costs.” We reaffirm that doctrine.- — Appeal dismissed.

1938We have read the cases cited by appellants from the standpoint of the minority rule, the latest of which is Julson v. City of Sioux Falls, S. D., 48 S. D. 452, 205 N. W. 43 , and while there is much merit in the reasoning of the South Dakota court in taking issue with the majority rule, we are of the opinion that the most salutary rule for all concerned is that set forth in the excerpt from the Ohio case.

1929The salutary rule involved in the instant case is well expressed in Heard v. Nancolas, supra. We therefore hold that the parol-evidence rule is applicable -to the instant facts, and' that the-defendant’s motion for a-directed verdict should have been sustained.

1928But it is no reason for disturbing the settled and salutary rule that appellate courts shall not devote time and labor to moot questions.” in Doidge v. Bruce (Iowa), 116 N. W. 726 (not officially reported), an action was brought by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendants from trespassing upon his land.

1927A. 428 ( 212 Fed. 908 ), aptly says: *1047 “It is a settled and salutary rule of law that a maker who through confidence intrusts, or through culpable negligence permits to go, to the custody of a third party a blank bond or promissory note, or other like instrument, which the third party completes by filling the blanks, and then delivers, for a purpose within the general scope and design of the instrument, to an innocent obligee or purchaser, who is thereby induced to change his situation to his legal' injury, in reliance upon the completed instrument, is thereby estopped, as against such obl

1927Co. v. Schmidt, 129 C.