28 N.W. 569 (Iowa 1886), Ormsby v. Nolan

Citation:28 N.W. 569, 69 Iowa 130
Opinion Judge:ROTHROCK, J.
Party Name:ORMSBY BROS. & CO. v. NOLAN, SHERIFF, ET AL
Attorney:Soper, Crawford & Carr, for appellants. Harrison & Jenswold, for appellees.
Case Date:June 15, 1886
Court:Supreme Court of Iowa
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 569

28 N.W. 569 (Iowa 1886)

69 Iowa 130

ORMSBY BROS. & CO.

v.

NOLAN, SHERIFF, ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 15, 1886

Appeal from Palo Alto District Court.

THIS is an action of replevin, in which the plaintiffs seek to recover certain personal property, the possession of which they claim they are entitled to by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by one Wickham to one Conger, and assigned by Conger to the plaintiffs. The defendants answered by denying the plaintiffs' right to the property, and averring that the defendant Nolan is the sheriff, and the defendant McNally is the deputy-sheriff, of Palo Alto county, and that the defendant McNally levied an execution upon said property as the property of Wickham, said execution having been issued on a judgment against Wickham. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Soper, Crawford & Carr, for appellants.

Harrison & Jenswold, for appellees.

OPINION

Page 570

[69 Iowa 131] ROTHROCK, J.

I.

The property in controversy was described in the mortgage as follows: "One open buggy, with fills new, made by Taylor Brothers, Emmetsburg, and bought of them; and one sulky, new, made by Taylor Brothers, Emmetsburg, Iowa." There was no evidence that the defendants had any actual notice of the mortgage when the property was levied upon, [69 Iowa 132] and the court below held that the description of the property in the mortgage was too indefinite to charge the defendants with constructive notice, and that, as between these parties, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to identify the property as that intended by the parties to the mortgage to be included therein.

Appellants insist that these rulings of the court were erroneous. A number of cases have been determined by this court involving the question as to the sufficiency of the description of property in chattel mortgages to charge third persons with constructive notice of the rights of the mortgagee. See Smith v. McLean, 24 Iowa 322; Ivins v. Hines, 45 Iowa 73; Muir v. Blake, 57 Iowa 662; Hayes v. Wilcox, 61 Iowa 732; Everett v. Brown, 64 Iowa 420.

An examination of these cases leaves no doubt that the ruling of the court below was correct. The description of the property as contained in the mortgage must direct the mind to evidence whereby the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP