Chapin v. Garretson
| Decision Date | 20 May 1892 |
| Citation | 52 N.W. 104,85 Iowa 377 |
| Parties | SENA A. CHAPIN, Appellee, v. L. P. GARRETSON, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Cross Appeals from Polk District Court.--HON. W. F. CONRAD, Judge.
On August 6, 1889, the plaintiff filed her petition to recover possession of certain chattel property described, claiming the same by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed to the plaintiff by the defendant to secure a promissory note for one hundred and forty-two dollars and sixty cents, then overdue, and for damages. The plaintiff alleged that demand had been made on the defendant for possession of the property, and possession refused. The defendant answered denying demand before the bringing of this suit, and alleging that the only consideration for the note was one hundred dollars, five dollars of which the defendant had paid, and that the rest of said note was for usury; that under the writ of replevin herein, the plaintiff wrongfully took possession of and has converted to her own use goods and merchandise enumerated in Exhibit A, which were not included in the mortgage, of the value of dollars. "The defendant asks judgment and order of the court for the return of said goods and merchandise specified in said Exhibit A, or judgment for their value, unless the same are returned; and, after allowing thereon the balance justly due on said note, asks judgment for the return of all of said mortgaged goods, or their value, in the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars and costs." The plaintiff moved to strike all that part of the answer asking judgment for the return of the goods enumerated in the Exhibit A, or for their value, for the reason that no other cause of action can be joined with this action. This motion being overruled, the plaintiff replied denying usury, and denying that any property was taken not covered by the mortgage, and alleging that J. B. Stewart had a landlord's lien for one hundred dollars upon the goods taken, which was prior to all other liens, and that the plaintiff was compelled to assume said indebtedness, by filing a bond to pay the same so as to retain said property wherefore she asks to recover the additional sum of one hundred dollars. The case was tried by a jury, and certain special findings returned. The plaintiff filed her motion for a new trial, and on the hearing thereof "asked the court to allow said special findings and answers to stand, and to allow a further trial and determination of the value of the plaintiff's interest in said mortgaged goods under said mortgage and note, and said landlord's lien; and after deducting the value of said plaintiff's interest from the value of the goods as found by the jury, to enter judgment in favor of the said defendant for the return of said goods, or the value of her interest therein." The court refused said requests, "and thereupon, as a final disposition of the entire case, the court overruled the plaintiff's motion for a new trial herein, and it was further adjudged by the court that said defendant have and receive herein the sum of ninety-two dollars and costs of suit, taxed at dollars against the plaintiff." Both parties appeal, both appeals being perfected on the same day; the defendant having first filed an abstract, will be denominated as "appellant." Defendant's appeal dismissed, upon plaintiff's appeal.
Reversed.
A. A Haskins, for appellee.
W. S Clark, for appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial