Stoddard v. Forbes
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa District Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of tbe court. cited 1 Hill. Mort., 468; 2 Id., 165, note; Berger v. Sister, 6 Whart., 210; Kimmel v. Williard, 7 Doug., 217.
1Opinion of the Court
Baldwin, O. J.
The respondent, Drusilla Forbes, executed to the complainant her three promissory notes, payable in one, two and three years. To secure the payment of said notes at maturity, she executed a mortgage upon certain real estate. The first note was paid when it became due. The second being unpaid, the complainant brought his action, and obtained a decree of foreclosure, and all the lands described in the mortgage were sold by the sheriff under this decree, in satisfaction of the amount due on the second note. The property sold was purchased by the complainant, anda sheriff’s deed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kramer v. RebmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
3Cited by9 opinions
- Parker v. DacresSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Seligman v. LaubheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
- Hardy v. HerriottWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Hays v. ThodeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Wemple v. Yosemite Gold Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.