24 N.W. 27 (Iowa 1885), Poole, Gilliam & Co. v. Seney
|Citation:||24 N.W. 27, 66 Iowa 502|
|Opinion Judge:||REED, J.|
|Party Name:||POOLE, GILLIAM & Co. v. SENEY ET AL.; AUERBACH, FINCH & Co. v. THE SAME. CAMPBELL & BURBANK v. THE SAME. JOHN MELHAP, SON & Co. v. THE SAME|
|Attorney:||McKenzie & Hemingway, for appellants. Taylor & Evans, for appellees.|
|Case Date:||June 10, 1885|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Iowa|
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
THESE are actions in equity to set aside two mortgages given by defendant John Seney and wife to Charles Seney, and to subject the property covered thereby to the payment of certain judgments obtained by plaintiffs against John Seney and the firm of Combellick & Seney. The petitions in the several cases are substantially alike, and they were all submitted on the same evidence.
There are two counts in each petition. In the first count it is averred that the plaintiffs obtained judgments for certain amounts against John Seney, and that he was the owner of certain real estate and personal property which was subject to judicial sale for the satisfaction of said judgments; but that, before said judgments were obtained, said John Seney had executed two mortgages on said property to Charles Seney to secure an alleged indebtedness of $ 3,270 to him; that John Seney was not indebted to Charles in that amount, or any portion of it, but that said mortgages were given for the purpose of hindering and delaying plaintiffs in the collection of their debts against John Seney, and that they were given without consideration, and that the amount secured by the mortgages was greater than the actual value of the property covered thereby, and that John Seney had no other property out of which said judgment could be collected.
In the second count it is averred that the plaintiffs also obtained judgments against the firm of Combellick & Seney, and that John Seney was a member of that firm, and that the firm was dissolved two days before the execution of the mortgages to Charles Seney; that it was insolvent at the time of the dissolution, and that the property covered by the mortgages was assets of the partnership, and the debt secured by the mortgages was the individual debt of John Seney. The answers deny the allegations that the mortgages were voluntary, or that they were given with the fraudulent intent alleged. They also deny that the debt secured by the mortgages was the individual debt of John Seney, and allege that a portion of said debt was the debt of Combellick & Seney. The circuit court...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP