Rhutasel v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 22 April 1886 |
| Citation | 68 Iowa 627,27 N.W. 786 |
| Parties | RHUTASEL v. STEPHENS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Franklin circuit court.
Action for the recovery of specific personal property. Defendant is sheriff of Franklin county, and he seized the property in controversy on a writ of attachment issued in the suit of the Citizens' Bank of Hampton against Nicholas J. Rhutasel. Plaintiff is the wife of Nicholas J. Rhutasel, and she claims the property under a chattel mortgage executed by her husband to secure an alleged indebtedness. The mortgagor was in possession of the property at the time of the seizure by defendant. The defenses pleaded are (1) that the description of the property contained in the mortgage is so indefinite that the record of the instrument did not impart constructive notice to third parties; and (2) that the mortgage was given by the mortgagor, and accepted by plaintiff, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the mortgagor. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Taylor & Evans and D. W. Dow, for appellant, C. F. Stephens.
Harriman & Luke and J. H. Bradley, for appellee, Emma A. Rhutasel.
The description of the property contained in the mortgage is as follows: “All my stock hogs, being forty, more or less, with the pigs now with them; one span of colts, three years old, one gray, one bay; eight cows, one seven years old, white, and with reds spots; one same age, and about same color; one brindle cow six years old; one cow four years old, with calf with her, blind in one eye; one four years old, red and white, with calf with her also; one eight years old, red, with white face; one roan cow, six years old.” The circuit court ruled that this description was sufficiently certain, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover, unless it was shown that the mortgage was executed, and accepted by her, with the fraudulent intent charged.
It was held by this court in Smith v. McLean, 24 Iowa, 322, that any description in a chattel mortgage which will enable third persons, aided by inquiries which the instrument itself suggests and directs, to identify the property intended to be covered, is sufficient. The correctness of the rule laid down in that case has never been seriously questioned, and it is well sustained by the authorities cited in the opinion, and by many others that might be cited. Under that rule, we think the description in the mortgage in question is sufficient as to the hogs named in it. In the description, “all my stock hogs, with the pigs now with them,” an inquiry is suggested, which, if followed, would enable a person not a party to the instrument to identify the property. We think, however, that the description as to the other property is clearly insufficient. The description, “one span of colts, three years old, one gray, and one bay,” contains nothing by which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial