Eggert v. White

• Decision Date: 05 October 1882
• Citation: 13 N.W. 426,59 Iowa 464
• Parties: EGGERT & THOREN v. WHITE ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

13 N.W. 426

59 Iowa 464

EGGERT & THOREN v. WHITE ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Davenport

October 5, 1882

Appeal from Hardin District Court.

THE defendant, White, commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage executed to him by one Griggs, on certain real estate. The defendant, Miller, on the application of White, was appointed a receiver to take charge of certain crops growing on the mortgaged premises. The plaintiffs intervened in said action claiming they were entitled to the possession of said crops under a chattel mortgage executed to them. The receiver took possession of the crops harvested, sold the same, and paid the net proceeds to White. From the order appointing the receiver there was an appeal, and the same was reversed by this court. See 54 Iowa 650. The object of this action is to recover the value of the crops as converted by the receiver. The court held the plaintiffs could not recover, and they appeal.

AFFIRMED.

J. H Scales, for appellant.

M. W Anderson and H. L. Huff, for appellee.

OPINION

SEEVERS, CH. J.

I. The right of the plaintiff to recover is based on the chattel mortgage executed by Griggs. In addition to a general denial, several special defenses were pleaded. The general denial put in issue the sufficiency of the mortgage. If the plaintiffs did not have a valid and sufficient mortgage on the crops, they cannot recover, no matter whether the defendants had any title or right thereto. The plaintiff must recover on the case made in the petition and on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of the defendants' title. If the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover, the defendants are liable to the true owner of the property. It is said by counsel for the plaintiffs that the defendants are trespassers, and therefore not in a position to question the validity of the mortgage. In support of such proposition Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 Conn. 500, is cited. This case has no application to the case in hand, nor does it support the proposition stated by counsel. Unless the plaintiffs were the owners, or in possession of the property, they cannot say the defendants were trespassers.

II. The description of the property in the mortgage is as follows "All and the entire crop of flax and wheat and other grain or produce raised on the east half, etc." The evidence tended to show the grain in controversy consisted of wheat and flax, and that about five acres thereof were sown at the time the mortgage was executed. The...