Leytham v. Hassett

3 Citing cases

  1. United Vaccines, Inc. v. Diamond Animal Health

    409 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (W.D. Wis. 2006)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that there is a "narrow exception" to the economic loss rule for fraud-based claims when such claims are "extraneous to, rather than interwoven with, the contract"

    As a general proposition, a party to a contract may not recover for breach of contract from an entity who is not a party to the contract according to its express terms. Leytham v. Hassett, 204 N.W. 237, 238 (Iowa 1925). Moreover, the fact that defendant Heska owns all of the stock of defendant Diamond does not by itself make defendant Heska liable for defendant Diamond's contracts.Fairbanks Morse Co. v. District Court in for Palo Alto County, 247 N.W. 203, 207 (Iowa 1933).

  2. Leytham v. McHenry

    228 N.W. 639 (Iowa 1930)   Cited 2 times

    EVANS, J. The case here presented was before us in one of its phases in Leytham v. Hassett, 200 Iowa 199. In that case the plaintiff purported to sue this defendant on the note of Hassett. At the close of the evidence therein, the district court directed a verdict for the defendant, and such order was affirmed here.

  3. Smith v. Morrison

    212 N.W. 567 (Iowa 1927)   Cited 5 times

    "Causes of action of whatever kind, where each may be prosecuted by the same kind of proceedings, if held by the same party, and against the same party, in the same rights, and if action on all may be brought and tried in that county, may be joined in the same petition." Leytham v. Hassett, 200 Iowa 199, is directly in point. Appellant has appealed from all of the adverse rulings of the court.