Citizens' State Bank of Panora v. Snyder, 31277.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Citation: 162 N.W. 6,181 Iowa 11
• Docket Number: No. 31277.,31277.
• Parties: CITIZENS' STATE BANK OF PANORA v. SNYDER ET AL.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1917

181 Iowa 11
162 N.W. 6

CITIZENS' STATE BANK OF PANORA
v.
SNYDER ET AL.

No. 31277.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 3, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Guthrie County; W. H. Fahey, Judge.

This appeal involves whether the trial court erred in refusing to hold that an earlier judgment estopped plaintiff from maintaining a suit to recover possession of real estate. Reversed.

[162 N.W. 6]

Robbins & Smith, of Winterset, for appellants.

J. R. Mount, of Panora, and Brown & Batschelet, of Guthrie Center, for appellee.

SALINGER, J.

In a petition filed on April 16, 1914, plaintiff asserts it is the absolute and unqualified owner in fee simple and entitled to the immediate possession of certain described real estate, charges that defendant willfully and unlawfully withholds the possession of same, and demands judgment for immediate possession. It bases this claim upon a sheriff's deed, the culmination of the foreclosure of a mortgage. Defendants answer: First, that said foreclosure did not divest the defendant Eva R. Snyder of her title because no original notice was served upon her; second, that plaintiff is estopped to maintain its suit for the following reasons: After the execution of said sheriff's deed, plaintiff began an action before a justice of the peace wherein it sought by action of forcible entry and detainer to dispossess defendant of part of the land involved both in said foreclosure and in the instant suit; that in said forcible entry and detainer action plaintiff based his right to possession upon that foreclosure; that said action was certified to the district court and there became an equity suit; and that therein the district court entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The trial court directed a verdict against the defendant. Its action cannot be sustained if this plea of estoppel is well made. The sole question we have is whether the judgment in the forcible entry and detainer action works the estoppel which defendant asserts.

[1] The plaintiff tells us that in the foreclosure suit there was a finding that notice was duly served, and that such finding is conclusive. In other words, it asserts that the judgment in the foreclosure suit conclusively establishes that plaintiff obtained title by the sheriff's deed. We may assume, for the sake of argument, that this ruled on the day the sheriff's deed was executed. But as one judgment upon due notice is no more conclusive than another judgment upon like notice, it must follow that the...