Lee County Savings Bank v. Snodgrass Bros.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Davis District Court. — Seneca Cornell, Judge. The appellant intervener is a mortgage creditor of the defendants.- The appellees claim that they have priority over the mortgage by reason of the levy of an attachment. The trial court held this claim of priority good in part, and the intervener appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.
1. Attachment : levy: sufficiency. I. The evidence fairly shows that the sheriff made a valid levy upon a part of the property in controversy. The evidence shows also that part of said property was not physically removed by the sheriff at the time it is claimed he made the levy. What he did do was to read the writ of attachment to the defendants, to tell them and their employees that the chattels were levied upon, and then leave all not physically moved in the possession of some of the defendant’s employees, instructing them that they were keeping possession for him. This does not bring the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. StockdaleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co. v. ZenorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Adams v. Commercial National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- Hamilton Bros. v. HartingerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
- King v. HowellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State v. GibsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Albert Pick & Co. v. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Union Bank & Trust Co. of Stanwood v. WilleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
- In Re Pointer Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- In re BransonDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.