Gifford v. Workman
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. This proceeding was brought to foreclose a mortgage given by Samuel Workman to the complainant in the year 1859. It appears that, subsequent to the date of complainant’s mortgage, Workman sold the mortgaged premises to his brother William, agreeing to warrant and defend against all incumbrances. William and his wife Mary sold, by quit-claim, the said premises to Nancy Workman.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. This proceeding was brought to foreclose a mortgage given by Samuel Workman to the complainant in the year 1859. It appears that, subsequent to the date of complainant’s mortgage, Workman sold the mortgaged premises to his brother William, agreeing to warrant and defend against all incumbrances. William and his wife Mary sold, by quit-claim, the said premises to Nancy Workman. The petitioner asks that the mortgage be foreclosed; that Nancy Workman, who is the mother of William, and Mary, his wife, with other parties not now necessary to name, be made…
1Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, Ch. J.
It is claimed in argument, by tbe counsel of appellant, that the mortgagor having sold and transferred his equity of redemption, is not a necessary party, having no interest in the controversy adverse to that of the complainant. It is recognized as a well-settled rule in a proceeding of this «character, that all persons whose rights are to be affected or concluded by the decree ought to be made parties.
Mr. Story, in his.work on Equity Pleadings, after referring especially to certain parties possessing certain interests in the mortgage, as devisees, legatees, &c., in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kersten v. ColemanMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Soltero v. Vélez RaícesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938
- Soltero v. RaícesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938