Cooley v. Hobart
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from the Marshall District Court. Foreclosure. The mortgage was executed by Hobart and wife, to secure a note made by the firm of Hobart & Waterbury — said note dated prior to, but maturing after, the date of the mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Marshall District Court. Foreclosure. The mortgage was executed by Hobart and wife, to secure a note made by the firm of Hobart & Waterbury — said note dated prior to, but maturing after, the date of the mortgage. The judgment in the court below was, that plaintiffs recover against the firm the amount of the note, with interest; that the mortgaged premises be sold under a special execution ; and that if the proceeds of said sale were not sufficient to satisfy the said judgment, that a general execution issue against the makers of the note.
1Opinion of the CourtWright, C. J.
It is urged that .the answer of defendants, is not overcome by the testimony of two witnesses; that plaintiffs did not prove their claim; and that no consideration is shown for the execution of the mortgage. To all this, the answer is, that the defendants admit, by their pleadings, the execution of the mortgage and note, and they do not pretend to deny that the amount claimed in the petition is due and owing. There was, therefore, nothing for the plaintiff to prove, for their case was admitted. That the mortgage was given to secure a debt previously contracted, would not invalidate it. Nor…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sands v. WoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kramer v. RebmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Meyer v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- Ayres v. CampbellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Duncan v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Coffin v. LockhartNew York Supreme Court · 1893