noting that, while Iowa courts are free to construe Iowa’s Contracts Clause differently from the federal Contracts Clause, “good policy and a desired consistency between the two Constitutions rather dictate the interpretation of the two clauses be similar”
How later courts described this case
- noting that, while Iowa courts are free to construe Iowa’s Contracts Clause differently from the federal Contracts Clause, “good policy and a desired consistency between the two Constitutions rather dictate the interpretation of the two clauses be similar”
- extending period of redemption
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Stevens, J.
(dissenting) — I am of the opinion that chapter 179, Acts of the Forty-fifth General Assembly, is, under the authority of Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, unconstitutional. The
*1374
act contains no definite provision for making compensation to the mortgagee. So far as any provision is made in this respect by the act, it is to be by the court sitting in equity.
I therefore, concur in the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Claussen so far as it deals with this phase of the question.