Huiscamp Bros. v. Albert
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court. The plaintiffs brought this action in attachment against the defendant, Albert, and caused the attachment to be levied upon a stock of goods. On the next day, W. IT. Dunlap bi’ought a similar action, and the attachment was levied on the same stock of goods, and he now intervenes hex-ein.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee Circuit Court. The plaintiffs brought this action in attachment against the defendant, Albert, and caused the attachment to be levied upon a stock of goods. On the next day, W. IT. Dunlap bi’ought a similar action, and the attachment was levied on the same stock of goods, and he now intervenes hex-ein. On the same day on which Dunlap levied upon the goods, but after such levy, Albert made a genei’al assignment for the benefit of his creditors to Jaxnes Braidwood, who intexwenes herein. Lee county also intervenes, and sets up a claixn for State and county taxes against Albert.…
1Opinion of the CourtSeevers, J.
The appellant insists that the court erx’ed in directing the payment of the State and county taxes. His contention is that, as the taxes accrued on personal property, and no levy had been made on the goods by the treasurer, the taxes were not liens, and that the court could only direct the payment of liens in the ox’der of priority. The appellant further contends that the taxes could only propexdy be paxa by him as assignee, and ixot even by him in that capacity,-un*423less the claim, was filed within three months, like other claims. It is provided by statute: “That in all assignments of property…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Emery v. AlmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Maish v. BirdU.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa · 1884
- Union Petroleum Co. v. Indian Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1922