Goodyear v. Goodyear

• Decision Date: 09 June 1887
• Citation: 33 N.W. 142,72 Iowa 329
• Parties: GOODYEAR AND ANOTHER v. GOODYEAR AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 Iowa 329

33 N.W. 142

GOODYEAR AND ANOTHER

v.GOODYEAR AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 9, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Greene county.

This is a suit in equity, and involves the question of the priority of conflicting liens upon certain real estate. There was a decree in the district court for the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.Howard & Rose, for appellants.

Russell & Tolliver, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

The material facts in the case are as follows: On the nineteenth day of June, 1882, R. G. Barnes sold and conveyed the land in controversy to E. C. Goodyear. The consideration for the sale was $1,600. Of this sum $250 was paid in cash, and the balance was secured by a mortgage on the premises, executed by E. C. Goodyear. The deed and mortgage were filed for record and recorded. On the seventh day of October, 1882, the defendants Charles P. Kellog & Co. obtained a judgment against said E. C. Goodyear and Henry Goodyear in the circuit court of Greene county for the sum of $1,760. This judgment was a lien on the land, but junior and inferior to the purchase-money mortgage. On the seventeenth day of November, 1882, E. C. Goodyear and her said husband conveyed the land to Martin Goodyear by a special warranty deed, and by the terms of the deed Martin Goodyear assumed the payment of the mortgage to Barnes, and agreed to pay the same when it became due. About January 16, 1884, Martin Goodyear paid the Barnes mortgage in full, and Barnes executed a release and satisfaction of the mortgage, which was filed for record and recorded on the thirtieth day of January, 1884. On the twenty-sixth day of December, 1884, Martin Goodyear conveyed the land by general warranty deed to Elizabeth Goodyear. Martin Goodyear is a son, and Elizabeth Goodyear a daughter, of E. C. and Henry Goodyear. Martin Goodyear and Elizabeth Goodyear, at the time the respective conveyances of the land were made, had no actual knowledge of the judgment in favor of Kellog & Co.

The question in the case arising upon the foregoing facts is, has Elizabeth Goodyear, the present owner of the land, the right to interpose the mortgage as a lien superior to the judgment? It is claimed that she has such right, because her grantor assumed and paid the mortgage as part of the purchase price of the land, and that he was entitled to be subrogated to the rights of Barnes, the mortgagee. We think this is a misconception of the law of subrogation, and a mistake as to the...