Swift v. Conboy
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Johnson District Court. The material facts appear in the opinion of the court. I. An appeal from the judgment of the District Court to the Supreme Court does not affect a judgment lien. Code of 1851, §§ 2485-2489. The active power of a judgment may be held in abeyance, while its binding or encumbering force remains in effect. Nothing but a satisfaction will cancel the .judgment rendered in the District Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson District Court. The material facts appear in the opinion of the court. I. An appeal from the judgment of the District Court to the Supreme Court does not affect a judgment lien. Code of 1851, §§ 2485-2489. The active power of a judgment may be held in abeyance, while its binding or encumbering force remains in effect. Nothing but a satisfaction will cancel the .judgment rendered in the District Court. Parsons v. Travis, 2 Duer 659. contended that a judgment against the appellant and the sureties on his bond discharged the lien of the judgment rendered in the court below,…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwiN, J.
The plaintiff filed his petition to foreclose a mortgage executed to him by Conboy and wife. Ostheim & Brothers and J. D. Templin were also made parties defendant, as they claimed certain interests in the mortgaged premises, as judgment creditors of the said Conboy, but which the plaintiffs claimed were subject to his mortgage lien. The plaintiff’s mortgage was executed, acknowledged and recorded in 1858. Templin claims, in his answer, to be the assignee of a mortgage executed by Conboy and wife to one Ricord, prior to the date of the mortgage to plaintiff, and upon the same property included…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Rockwell v. District CourtSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
- Bankers Surety Co. v. LinderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Smith v. SchwartzUtah Supreme Court · 1899
- Hamsmith v. EspySupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
- Eland v. CarterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931