25 Iowa 104 | Iowa | 1868
Plaintiff’s action was at law. His petition was substantially in conformity with section 8570, of the Bevision, claiming a-fee simple ownership. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s title and claimed to be himself the owner. The only issue made under the pleadings was which of the two parties held the legal title and right of possession.
"We propose to notice simply the rulings to which exceptions were duly taken.
2. It is quite clear that the legal title passed to Bailey, the trustee, from him to "Ware, from Ware to Mrs. Atkinson, and from the latter to the defendant.
The clerical error in the trustee’s deed as to date of posting notices of sale would not invalidate it.
The deed was executed by the trustee in the form prescribed by the power contained in the deed of trust, and had the effect to pass the legal title.
If the wife made this purchase with the husband’s money, it would, at least in equitv, as against the hus
But the plaintiff made no proof that the wife’s purchase from Ware was made with her husband’s means. If it be granted that such an inquiry was proper in the present action, the duty of showing that the purchase by Mrs. Atkinson was not made with her separate money was. on the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not show this. The proposed admission of Atkinson, if it were regarded as 'in the case, would not be sufficient to defeat the title of the> defendant.
Without prejudice to the equitable rights of the plaintiff, if any she has, the judgment below is
Affirmed.