Darnall v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 21 May 1896 |
| Citation | 98 Iowa 410,67 N.W. 273 |
| Parties | DARNALL v. BENNETT, SHERIFF. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Madison county; J. H. Applegate, Judge.
Action to recover the possession of the three sets of double buggy harness, two sets of heavy work harness, and six men's leathercovered tree saddles, of the value of $182.50, or the value thereof, alleged to be wrongfully detained by the defendant as sheriff, under an execution, as the property of J. A. Darnall. The case was tried to the court, and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for the return of the saddles, or for their value, $39.50, and for $121, as the value of the harness. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Steele & Robbins and Granger, Bennett & Evans, for appellant.
John Leonard & Son, for appellee.
1. Plaintiff, in her petition filed September 15, 1893, claimed the right to the immediate possession of the property in question, by virtue of two chattel mortgages executed to her by her husband, J. A. Darnall, and one executed by him to the First National Bank of Winterset, of which she is now the owner. In the first paragraph of her petition, plaintiff alleges that she is the absolute and unqualified owner of said property; but it is clearly apparent from the whole petition that she claims under said mortgages only. Defendant's claim to the property is by virtue of an execution in his hands as sheriff, in favor of the Des Moines Saddlery Company, and against J. A. Darnall. As no bond was given by the plaintiff, the property remained in the hands of the defendant, and he sold sufficient thereof to satisfy said execution. He alleged in his answer that he had “remaining of all the saddles levied upon as aforesaid and the further sum of $163 in cash; and on the 25th day of December, 1893, he returned all of said saddles and the said cash to the ______, from whence they were taken by him on said execution.” On plaintiff's motion, all that part including and following the words “and on the 25th day of December” was stricken out. Had defendant alleged a return of the saddles and cash to the plaintiff, it would have been error to sustain the motion. If we may assume that plaintiff's name was intended to appear in the blank, the error was without prejudice, as the judgment allows the defendant to return the saddles.
2. The mortgages were admitted in evidence over appellant's objection. The ground of the objection is that the plaintiff alleged that she was the absolute and unqualified owner of the property, and that the mortgages did not tend to show such ownership. True, the plaintiff does so allege, but she sets out the three mortgages, and makes it entirely apparent that it is under them, and them only, that she claims the right to the possession of the property. There was no error in admitting the mortgages in evidence.
3. Mr. J. A. Darnall was examined by the plaintiff as to the value of the harness and saddles, and defendant asked on cross-examination where the saddles and harness came from, and who were the manufacturers, to which plaintiff's objections were sustained. It is manifest that the purpose was to show that these goods came from the Des Moines Saddlery Company. The right of the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial