Burtis v. The Humboldt County Bank

• Decision Date: 31 January 1889
• Parties: BURTIS v. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY BANK et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

41 N.W. 585

77 Iowa 103

BURTIS v. THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY BANK et al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 31, 1889

Decided January, 1889.

Appeal from Humboldt District Court.--HON. GEORGE H. CARR, Judge.

ACTION in chancery to quiet and establish title in plaintiff to a certain tract of land. Upon a trial on the merits plaintiff's petition was dismissed. He now appeals to this court.

AFFIRMED.

J. C Raymond, for appellant.

P Finch, for appellees.

OPINION

BECK, J.

I.

The petition alleges that plaintiff purchased at sheriff's sale, under a judgment against one Williams and wife, the interest which they held in certain land under a lease to them by the agricultural college. It is shown that plaintiff was the assignee of the judgment, and that the wife, to whom the lease was executed, before the suit was commenced in which the judgment was rendered under which plaintiff claims assigned the lease to Mattison, who, before the judgment was rendered, assigned the lease to the Humboldt County Bank, which procured a patent to be issued to it for the land; and that the other defendants hold an interest in the land under the bank. It is alleged that these assignments and transfers were made to defeat the creditors of Williams and wife, of which the bank had full notice. The plaintiff asks that defendants' claim and title to the land be set aside, and that it be quieted in plaintiff.

II. There can be no dispute as to the rules of law prevailing in this case; and we think, after a careful consideration of the evidence, there ought not to be disagreement as to the controlling facts of the case. If it be conceded that Williams and wife by the transfers of the lease intended to defeat their creditors, the evidence fails to show that the bank and the other defendant shared that purpose. The evidence leads to the conclusion that the bank acquired the lease in good faith in payment of a claim it held against Williams and wife. We think that the evidence utterly fails to show that the bank, through its officers or agents, had knowledge of the Williams indebtedness, and their purpose to defeat its collection, if such purpose existed. The consideration paid by the bank to Williams was not far from the real value of their leasehold interest, and after the amount they were owing on the lands was paid (for it seems the lease was in effect a contract of purchase and sale), the property cost the bank about...