Armour Packing Co. v. Des Moines Pork Co.

• Citation: 89 N.W. 196,116 Iowa 723
• Parties: ARMOUR PACKING CO. v. DES MOINES PORK CO. ET AL.
• Decision Date: 14 February 1902
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

116 Iowa 723

89 N.W. 196

ARMOUR PACKING CO.

v.DES MOINES PORK CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 14, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; C. P. Holmes, Judge.

The plaintiff obtained judgment against the Des Moines Pork Company, and caused C. H. Gates to be garnished, under an execution duly issued, as a supposed debtor of the judgment defendants. Issue was joined on the garnishee's answer, denying any indebtedness, and trial had to the court. From judgment of $264.37 against him, the garnishee appeals. Affirmed.E. B. Evans, for appellant.

Dunshee & Dorn, for appellee.

LADD, C. J.

The Des Moines Pork Company leased of Gates for one year from June 1, 1897, the building known as No. 506 East Walnut street at the monthly rental of $41.66, occupied it about two weeks as a meat market, and then, owing to financial troubles, quit business. One month's rent had been paid in advance. Negotiations were begun at once, looking to a continuance of the business by one Holehan, and a bill of sale of the meats on hand made to him, and a note drawn for their value for him to sign, and indorsed in blank. He refused to take the goods, and, though signing the note, retained it in his pocket. Thereupon Gates took possession of the building and meats, operated the market himself for a short time, and then leased it to a firm composed of himself and Holehan for $25 a month. He appropriated the meats, and it is for their value that judgment is demanded. He insists that this should be offset by the difference in the rent stipulated in the lease and that he was able to realize during remainder of the term. He claims that the note referred to was indorsed by the company to him as security for the payment of the rent to accrue, and practically that the bill of sale was made out, and the meats turned over for that purpose. On the other hand, Kirkpatrick, a member of the copartnership known as the “Des Moines Pork Company,” testified that the sole purpose of the bill of sale and note was to dispose of the property to Holehan, and nothing was said or done with relation to securing rent to become due or transferring the meats or note to Gates; that the negotiations were conducted on the basis that the building was worth the rental stipulated, and giving it up would not involve loss. Evidently the trial court took this view, and found that the company had abandoned the premises, and that Gates had merely re-entered and taken possession for himself....