Gregory v. Bowlsby
Iowa Supreme Court
88 N.W. 822 (1902)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Catherine Bowlsby died intestate, leaving a husband, Benjamin Bowlsby (defendant), and children (plaintiffs) as her heirs. Each heir inherited an interest in Catherine’s farmland. Benjamin asked his children to sign over their interests in the farmland to him for $1 each, claiming that this would allow Benjamin to use the land more effectively for everyone’s benefit. In exchange, Benjamin orally promised his children that (1) he would hold the land for his entire life and (2) the land and all the profits from it would go to the children at Benjamin’s death. Benjamin had an attorney help him with the transaction, but none of the children consulted an attorney before signing over their interests in the land. Benjamin then remarried and gave one-third of the land to his new wife. The children sued Benjamin to return their interests in the farmland, claiming that Benjamin had never intended to follow through on his promises and that he had made the promises solely to defraud the children into giving up their interests in the land. Benjamin demurred to the complaint, i.e., moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The trial court ruled that any alleged oral promises were not enforceable under the statute of frauds and, therefore, that the children had no possible claim for relief. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit, and the children appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Deemer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
