Coad v. Schaap
| Decision Date | 23 October 1909 |
| Citation | 122 N.W. 900,144 Iowa 240 |
| Parties | JAMES A. COAD, Appellant, v. P. R. SCHAAP, SHERIFF, ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sioux District Court.--HON. WILLIAM HUTCHINSON, Judge.
ACTION to recover damages against defendant, as sheriff, for the conversion of moneys collected under execution running against the plaintiff, issued in an action in which judgment was rendered against him, and also to recover a penalty for selling the property of plaintiff on execution without the notice required by Code, section 4027. On a trial to the court there was a judgment against plaintiff for costs, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
G. T Hatley, for appellant.
G Klay, for appellees.
The defendant, as sheriff, held an execution against this plaintiff in an action in which judgment had been rendered against him for $ 183.07, including costs, and under such execution served notice of garnishment on an alleged debtor of said execution defendant. In response to this notice of garnishment the sum of $ 265, held by the garnishee as the property of the execution defendant, was surrendered to the sheriff, and the garnishee was thereupon discharged. The execution was then returned to the clerk of the court with the amount of money necessary for its satisfaction, and the clerk entered a satisfaction of the execution accordingly. Plaintiff complains that he was not served with notice of the garnishment proceedings, as required by Code, section 3947 and that no copy of the execution showing the garnishment proceeding under it was returned to the next term of court, as required by Code, section 3976, and that, by the action of the sheriff, without such proceedings on his part being brought to the attention of the plaintiff, an appeal by him from the original judgment which had been rendered against him was prevented, all of which was to his damage, etc.
It does not appear that plaintiff was prevented from appealing from the judgment rendered in the other action against him by any omission of the sheriff in making a more speedy return of the execution, or such return as to show the garnishment proceeding, and it does appear, by evidence which was objected to by plaintiff, that defendant tendered to the plaintiff, by payment to the clerk of court for plaintiff's benefit, of the excess of the money collected on the garnishment beyond the amount necessary to satisfy the execution in his hands. We cannot see, therefore under the evidence, any ground on which judgment for damages against the defendant could have been rendered. As to the penalty provided for in Code, section 4027, it is sufficient to say that it relates only to the sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial