Deering & Co. v. Wheeler
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeals from Audubon District Court. — Hon. A. B. Thornell, Judge. i These are actions to recover tlie value of certain personal property taken and converted by defendant. The plaintiffs in the first case were mortgagees of the property taken, and in the second case the plaintiff was the owner. The cases are submitted for decision together ; the questions of law involved in each being the same, and the facts upon which such questions are involved being alike in each case.
Read the full summary
Appeals from Audubon District Court. — Hon. A. B. Thornell, Judge. i These are actions to recover tlie value of certain personal property taken and converted by defendant. The plaintiffs in the first case were mortgagees of the property taken, and in the second case the plaintiff was the owner. The cases are submitted for decision together ; the questions of law involved in each being the same, and the facts upon which such questions are involved being alike in each case. There was a judgment for plaintiff in each case. Defendants in each appeal. Plaintiffs in the first case also appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
1. chattel “yy^nmorterty? SpSsit mortgage not due- — I. The defendants justify the taking and conversion of the property under the following facts: The defendant Wheeler had a judgment against Dotson, who executed the chattel mortgage under • which plaintiffs claim, Upon this judgment an execution was issued and placed in the hands of the defendant Mallory, who was the sheriff. Two other mortgages were on the property which were prior to the defendants’ judgments and to plaintiff ’ s mortgage. Defendant Wheeler deposited the amount due on these mortgages with the clerk of the court, and then…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Moore v. CalvertSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
- Degenhart v. CartierMontana Supreme Court · 1920
- Howard v. BurkeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Degenhart v. CartierMontana Supreme Court · 1916