Smith v. Steely
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Lee District .Court. — How. J. M. Casey, Judge. Action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants, Rees & Co., set up a junior mortgage. There is no controversy as to plaintiffs’ mortgage and a judgment held by another defendant. The sole contest is over Rees & Co.’s mortgage; the mortgagors, Steely and wife, insisting that it is invalid, and should not be enforced. By the final decree, Rees & Co.’s cross-bill, settingup the mortgage, was dismissed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee District .Court. — How. J. M. Casey, Judge. Action to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants, Rees & Co., set up a junior mortgage. There is no controversy as to plaintiffs’ mortgage and a judgment held by another defendant. The sole contest is over Rees & Co.’s mortgage; the mortgagors, Steely and wife, insisting that it is invalid, and should not be enforced. By the final decree, Rees & Co.’s cross-bill, settingup the mortgage, was dismissed. They now appeal to this •court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
— I. The defendants, Steely and wife, as a defense to the cross-bill of Rees & Co., plead that the mortgage sought to be enforced in the cross-bill was given by them under these circumstance: The son of defendants had been in the employment of Rees & Co., who claimed he had misappropriated and embezzled a large sum of money coming into his hands in the' course of his employment, and that unless they at once secured the payment of the money alleged to have been misappropriated their son would be prosecuted by criminal proceedings instituted against him. The desire of defendants to prevent a…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Kwentsky v. SirovySupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
- Racine-Sattley Manufacturing Co. v. PavlicekNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Beal & Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. BartonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Henry v. State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.