midpage

Fenton v. WayFenton v. Way

Supreme Court of Iowa
Oct 20, 1876
Reporters:
Before:
Day
Day, J.

i. practice: reliearing?1 decree. I. The court did not err in proceeding to enter a decree pursuant to the direction of this ‍‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍court, in accordance the opinion. The objections interposed by defendants are without merit. The court could not expected to withhold action upon the suggestion that defendant intended to petition for a rehearing. Upon the filing of such petition and order from a judge of ‍‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍this court, the procedendo would be recalled. That not having been done when the plaintiff moved for a decree, it was the duty of the court below to proceed pursuant to the order contained in the procedendo.

*440_. fatlon ifneel” deeds. *439II. Appellants complain of ‍‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍the order in the decree directing the clerk of the court- to enter on the margin of the *440records of the deeds that they are canceled by order of the court. There can be no objection to this part of the decree. The tax ‍‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍deed was set aside, and all the others based upon it became inoperative as muniments of title. It is a mere matter of convenience that there should be a marginal note on the record referring to the fact that the deeds had been canceled ‍‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‍by order of court. This merely facilitates the examination of the condition of the title. There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Fenton v. Way
Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa
Date Published: Oct 20, 1876
Citation: 44 Iowa 438
Court Abbreviation: Iowa
Log In