Boyles v. Latham
| Citation | 16 N.W. 68,61 Iowa 174 |
| Parties | BOYLES v. LATHAM ET AL |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1883 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.
ACTION in equity for the assignment of the alleged distributive share of the plaintiff, Annetta Boyles, in certain land in Madison county. She claims the same as distributee of the estate of one William H. Marble, deceased. The petition shows that the plaintiff was at one time the wife of Marble; that while she was his wife he became the owner of the land in question; that afterward, and while she was still his wife, he sold and conveyed the land to the defendant, Jesse Latham; that she did not join in the deed and has made no relinquishment of her rights.
The defendants for answer, aver among other things, that in December, 1875, the plaintiff procured a divorce from Marble in the state of Illinois, and was not the wife of Marble at the time he died.
To the answer the plaintiff demurred, and the demurrer was overruled, and from the order overruling the demurrer the plaintiff appeals.
AFFIRMED.
A. W. C. Weeks, for appellant.
Ruby & Wilkin, for appellees.
In Marvin v. Marvin, 59 Iowa 699, 13 N.W. 851, the plaintiff had procured a divorce from her husband in the state of Ohio. He afterward died, leaving certain real estate in Iowa. She brought her action against the heirs for the purpose of obtaining her distributive share. It was held that, the marriage relation having been dissolved prior to his death, she was not distributee of his estate. The question in the case at bar differs in no material respect from the question decided in that case. The considerations urged against the correctness of the ruling in Marvin v. Marvin have been fully considered, but they are not such as to satisfy us that the case should be overruled.
We think that the answer showed a good defense, and that the demurrer was properly overruled.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schippers
...unassailed, is a complete bar to any claim to dower.” See Id.; see also Hamilton, 129 N.W. at 482;Winch, 63 N.W. at 331;Boyles v. Latham, 61 Iowa 174, 16 N.W. 68, 68 (1883); Marvin, 13 N.W. at 851. Here, the divorce decree was not procured by fraud. Rather, as discussed below, there were fr......
-
Hamilton v. McNeill
... ... Levins v. Sleator, 2 G. Greene, ... 604, 609; McCraney v. McCraney, 5 Iowa 232; ... Marvin v. Marvin, 59 Iowa 699, 13 N.W. 851; ... Boyles v. Latham, 61 Iowa 174, 16 N.W. 68; Winch ... v. Bolton, 94 Iowa 573, 63 N.W. 330. This particular ... provision of the statute was first ... ...
-
Hamilton v. McNeill
...2 G. Greene, 604, 609;McCraney v. McCraney, 5 Iowa, 232, 68 Am. Dec. 702;Marvin v. Marvin, 59 Iowa, 699, 13 N. W. 851;Boyle v. Latham, 61 Iowa, 174, 16 N. W. 68;Winch v. Bolton, 94 Iowa, 573, 63 N. W. 330. This particular provision of the statute was first enacted in 1846 and appeared in th......
-
McCoy v. McCoy
...previous cases: Blythe v. Blythe, 25 Iowa, 266;Wilde v. Wilde, 36 Iowa, 319;Marvin v. Marvin, 59 Iowa, 699, 13 N. W. 851;Boyles v. Latham, 61 Iowa, 174, 16 N. W. 68;Shaw v. Shaw, 92 Iowa, 722, 61 N. W. 368. The general ground upon which these holdings are based was that alimony is an incide......