Carmichael v. Bodfish
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Tama Circuit Court. Action to foreclose a mortgage, default and judgment against the mortgagor. Hurlbutt & Edsall claim to be judgment creditors, and answer that the defendant, Bod-fish is insolvent, and that the contract between him and plaintiff was usurious. To the second count of the answer, alleging usury, etc., plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and Hurlbutt & Edsall appeal, and assign this ruling as error.
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The only question presented by this appeal is, whether appellants, who are judgment creditors of Bodfish, the mortgagor, can, without the concurrence of their debtor, take advantage of an usurious contract to which they are not parties, for the purpose of protecting the property of the debtor, he being insolvent, so that they may be enabled to make their claim from such property ?
Bodfish, the mortgagor of plaintiff and judgment debtor of appellants, suffered judgment by default to be entered against him for the amount of the note and mortgage as appeared upon the face of the same. It was not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- De Wolf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Stoney v. American Life InsuranceNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Bearce v. BarstowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Gray's Executors v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Greither v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pritchett v. MitchellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Miller v. ClarkeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- Cheney v. DunlapNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Pardoe v. Iowa State National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- In re WorthDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.