Coleman v. Reel

• Decision Date: 03 October 1888
• Citation: 39 N.W. 510,75 Iowa 304
• Parties: COLEMAN v. REEL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 Iowa 304

39 N.W. 510

COLEMAN

v.REEL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 3, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Pottawattamie county; GEORGE CARSON, Judge.

Action by William E. Coleman against Perry Reel, sheriff of Pottawattamie county, for property, levied upon under a writ of attachment against the goods of T. L. Collver, which property was mortgaged by said Collver to plaintiff. Trial to the court, and judgment that plaintiff recover two colts, described in the petition, or, in lieu thereof, $100, from which defendant appealed.Fremont Benjamin, for appellant.

I. L. Statzell, for appellee.

SEEVERS, C. J.

It is stated in the petition that the plaintiff is the owner of “two red heifers, with some white in forehead, two years old; * * * one single buggy; * * * one iron-gray mare colt, about eight months old; * * * one bay spotted horse colt, about ten months old; * * * three Poland sows and eleven pigs, about seven months old. * * *” And such ownership is claimed under a chattel mortgage executed by one Collver, which had been duly acknowledged and recorded. It is stated in the petition, notice in writing of plaintiff's ownership of said property had been duly served on the defendant, and a copy of such notice is attached to and made a part of the petition. It is further stated that the defendant had actual notice of the mortgage. The defendant denied the allegations of the petition, but admitted that he, as sheriff, took possession of the property under and by virtue of a certain writ of attachment against said Collver.

1. It is insisted that the court erred in permitting the mortgage to be introduced in evidence, because the description of the property therein is not sufficient, and that the recording of such mortgage did not impart constructive notice thereof. We find it unnecessary to determine this question, for the reason there was evidence tending to show the defendant had actual notice the property was mortgaged. Such evidence was sufficient to warrant the court in making the finding it did, and we cannot disturb it, under the settled practice of this court. The court was justified in finding that at the time the defendant made the levy he was notified the property was mortgaged. This was sufficient to put him on inquiry, although he was not informed the mortgage had been given to the plaintiff. We the more readily reach this conclusion, because we incline to think, taking the mortgage altogether, it was sufficient to impart...