Russell & Co. v. Murdock
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from, Humboldt District Court. — Hon. Lot Thomas, Judge. Action in chancery to foreclose a chattel mortgage. There was a decree rendering j ndgment against two of the three defendants, but no foreclosure of the mortgage. Both parties appeal, the plaintiffs first.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
I. The mortgage sought to be foreclosed was executed to secure certain promissory notes made by defendants in consideration of a separator and attachments and a traction steam-engine, purchased by defendants from plaintiffs. The terms and conditions of the contract of purchase are expressed in an order for the property given by defendants, and addressed to plaintiffs. Among other conditions, the order contained the following: (1) The defendants agreed to execute, in security of the purchase money, a chattel mortgage upon certain specified personal property. (2) It was stipulated “that title…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Upton Manuf'g Co. v. HuiskeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
- Davis' Sons v. ButrickSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- Harrison v. ColtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Bayliss v. HennesseySupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
3Cited by15 opinions
- Murphy v. Russell & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1901
- Best Manufacturing Co. v. HuttonMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- James H. Love & Co. v. RossSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. BrowerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Rice v. Friend Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.