24 N.W. 518 (Iowa 1885), Bickler, Winzer & Co. v. Kendall

Citation:24 N.W. 518, 66 Iowa 703
Opinion Judge:REED, J.
Party Name:BICKLER, WINZER & Co. ET AL. v. KENDALL, DEFENDANT, AND GARRETT, INTERVENOR
Attorney:Sprague & Springer and Dodge & Dodge, for appellants. E. W. Tatlock and Newman & Blake, for appellees.
Case Date:September 23, 1885
Court:Supreme Court of Iowa

Page 518

24 N.W. 518 (Iowa 1885)

66 Iowa 703

BICKLER, WINZER & Co. ET AL.

v.

KENDALL, DEFENDANT, AND GARRETT, INTERVENOR

Supreme Court of Iowa, Council Bluffs

September 23, 1885

Appeal from Louisa District Court.

THE plaintiffs each instituted a suit on a money demand against defendant, R. S. Kendall, and in each suit a writ of attachment was issued against the property of defendant. The sheriff made an attempt to levy said writs on a certain stock of goods which had formerly belonged to defendant, but which at the time were in possession of the intervenor. The suits were commenced on the seventeenth day of October, 1881, and on the twenty-fifth of the following January Garrett filed his petition in intervention, in which he alleged that he was the owner of said goods and in possession thereof, at the time of the pretended levy of said writs of attachment thereon, having purchased the same from the defendant Kendall. Also that the return of said writs of attachment, which shows levies on said stocks of goods, are not true in fact, but that the officer who attempted to make said levies never took possession of the property, and never entered the building in which it was situated, and did not see the property at the time, and did nothing towards effecting a levy on it, except to barricade the door to the building in which it was situated, and thereby exclude intervenor therefrom.

The answer to the petition set up that the sale of said property by defendant Kendall to intervenor was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding the creditors of the former in the collection of their debts, and alleges that plaintiffs are creditors of Kendall. The causes were tried together in the district court. There was a verdict and judgment for the intervenor, and plaintiffs appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Sprague & Springer and Dodge & Dodge, for appellants.

E. W. Tatlock and Newman & Blake, for appellees.

OPINION

[66 Iowa 704] REED, J.

The questions presented by the pleadings are (1) whether there was a valid levy of the attachments on the property in question; and (2) whether the sale of the goods by Kendall to intervenor was made for the purpose of hindering, [66 Iowa 705] delaying or defrauding Kendall's creditors in the collection of their debts.

I. The evidence without any conflict establishes the following facts, which should...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP