Caldwell v. Trowbridge

• Decision Date: 19 December 1885
• Citation: 68 Iowa 150,26 N.W. 49
• Parties: CALDWELL AND OTHERS v. TROWBRIDGE, SHERIFF.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

68 Iowa 150

26 N.W. 49

CALDWELL AND OTHERS

v.TROWBRIDGE, SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 19, 1885.

Appeal from Shelby circuit court.

Action in replevin. There was a trial to the court, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The plaintiffs appeal.J. Lyman and S. W. De Silva for appellants.

Macy & Gammon and Smith & Cullison for appellee.

ADAMS, J.

The property in question consists of 19 steers each two years old at the time the action was brought, and 19 steers each one year old at the time the action was brought. The plaintiffs claim a right to the immediate possession of the steers by virtue of an alleged chattel mortgage executed to them by one Peterson. The defendant claims the right of possession as sheriff of Shelby county, and by virtue of an alleged levy of writs of attachment issued against the property of said Peterson.

Several questions are presented, but it will be sufficient to determine one of them, and that is as to whether the description in the mortgage is sufficient to cover the property in question. The defendant contends that it is not, and, in our opinion, his position must be sustained. The description is in these words: “Sixty head of two and three year old steers, and forty head of yearling steers; also, sixty-five acres of standing corn, situated in Clay township, Shelby county.”

The counsel for the respective parties discuss the question as to whether the word “situated” refers to steers as well as corn. We do not find it necessary to determine this question, because if it should be conceded that the word refers to steers we still think that the description is fatally defective. It does not purport to apply to specific steers. There is no suggestion that the steers were all the steers of that age which the mortgagor owned in that township, and, if he had others, the mortgage would apply equally to all. The plaintiffs rely upon Smith v. McLean, 24 Iowa, 322;Rowley v. Bartholemew, 37 Iowa, 374;Yant v. Harvey, 55 Iowa, 421;S. C. 7 N. W. Rep. 675, and Stephens v. Pence, 56 Iowa, 257;S. C. 9 N. W. Rep. 215. In Smith v. McLean, the description held sufficient was in these words: “Five freight wagons and twenty-five yoke of cattle, being the train now in my possession.” The description was such as to imply that the mortgagor had but one train in his possession. It purported, therefore, to cover a specific train. In Rowley v. Bartholemew, the question was not as to whether the description was...