Cox v. Burns
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Cox sued W. H. Farner & Co. in the District Court of Lee county, by attachment, on wbicb Burns & Bentgen were garnished, and who answered, denying the possession or control of property of Farner & Co. Issue was taken on this answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Lee District Court. Cox sued W. H. Farner & Co. in the District Court of Lee county, by attachment, on wbicb Burns & Bentgen were garnished, and who answered, denying the possession or control of property of Farner & Co. Issue was taken on this answer. The trial was had by the court, without a jury, the court'being requested to give its decision in writing, stating the facts found, in pursuance of section 1793 of the Code.(1) On the trial, two bills of exception were signed, but by an order of this court, made by the late bench, at the December term, 1854, so much of the…
1Opinion of the CourtIsbell, J.
We have examined witb much care, most, if not all, tbe authorities cited by tbe court below, in support of its position, as well as tbe numerous authorities cited by tbe respective counsel, in tbe able arguments made in this case, bave attentively considered tbe above statement of facts, and arrive at a conclusion different from that of tbe court below.
That .tbe lien of a vendor of goods sold on credit, during tbe time tbat tbe goods are in transitu, is paramount to that of an attaching creditor, whether tbe attachment is levied before or after tbe vendors’ right to reclaim tbe goods is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Clapp Bros. & Co. v. PeckSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Alsberg, Jourdan & Co. v. LattaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- O'Neil v. GarrettSupreme Court of Iowa · 1858
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. J. Painter & SonsNebraska Supreme Court · 1884