David Bradley & Co. v. Bischel
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from QheroTcee District Court. — Hon. C. H. Lewis, Judge. Actioh by attachment upon an account for goods sold. Intervenors claimed the right to the property attached, and their claim was sustained by the judgment of the district court. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
I. The petition was filed and the attachment was issued on the twenty-first day of January, 1888, and at 12:50 o’clock p. m. the property in controversy was seized under the attachment. D. M. Beams, on the twenty-first day of February, 1888, intervened in the action by petition, claiming the property, or a part of it, under a chattel mortgage executed by August Bischel, March 11, 1886, to secure a promissory note of same date, given for the purchase of some of the goods in controversy. It was acknowledged on the twentieth day of January, 1888, and filed for record on the next day, at one o’…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Perry v. VezinaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Ex parte HopkinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Auley v. OstermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Blake v. FaulknerIndiana Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wilson v. SullivanUtah Supreme Court · 1898
- Parker, Holmes & Co. v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Birdsal, Waite & Perry Manufacturing v. SchwarzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Mc Cord-Brady Co. v. MillsWyoming Supreme Court · 1899
- Birdsall, Waite & Perry Manufacturing Co. v. SchwarzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896