Brock v. Barr

• Decision Date: 17 December 1886
• Citation: 70 Iowa 399,30 N.W. 652
• Parties: BROCK v. BARR.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 399

30 N.W. 652

BROCK

v.BARR.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 17, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Mahaska county.

Action in detinue to recover the value of certain personal property wrongfully taken from plaintiff by defendant. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Carroll & Davis and Phillips & Greer, for appellant.

John F. & W. R. Lacey and Gleason & Haskell, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the value of a buggy and harness, of the aggregate value of $85, which were levied upon by defendant, who is the sheriff of the county, under an execution against one Lewis. The petition, as we understand the abstract, shows that the plaintiff claims the property under a mortgage executed by Lewis, and that written notice of plaintiff's claim to the property, and demand of possession thereof, was, as required by statute, served upon defendant. The answer of defendant admits the levy of the execution and registry of the mortgage, and denies plaintiff's ownership of the property, and all allegations not specifically admitted. It alleges that the mortgage is void because of the insufficiency of the description of the property covered by it, and for the further reason that it was executed for the purpose of hindering and delaying the creditors of Lewis, the mortgagor, and especially the plaintiff in the execution. A judgment was rendered for defendant in the justice's court. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. An agreement in writing was entered into between the parties that another suit before a justice of the peace, involving the right of plaintiff to the possession of a horse, should be consolidated with this suit, and that defendant's answer to the petition should be applicable to the amended petition filed for the purpose of settling his claim to the property involved in the second action. That amended petition alleges that plaintiff is the owner of the horse under the mortgage in question in the first suit, which is of the value of $70, and that it was seized by defendant under an execution against the mortgagor.

2. The causes, when consolidated, became one cause. More than $100 are involved therein, as shown by the pleadings. A certificate of the questions for decision was not necessary to authorize an appeal. One was given, however, but it must be disregarded, and the case tried here upon the record without regard to the certificate.

3. The defendant requested the circuit court to instruct the jury that the description of the mortgage is so indefinite that the instrument is not sufficient to impart...