Harms v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 15 December 1887
• Citation: 73 Iowa 446,35 N.W. 515
• Parties: HARMS v. PALMER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 446

35 N.W. 515

HARMS

v.PALMER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 15, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Hardin county; JOHN L. STEVENS, Judge.

Action in equity by Wobkelina Harms, to set aside an execution sale of 40 acres of land. There was a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant, H. D. Palmer, appeals.Nagle & Birdsall, for appellant.

Williams & Baker, for appellee.

ADAMS, C. J.

The execution in this case was issued upon a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Palmer, against one Harm S. Harms. The property levied upon, however, belonged to the plaintiff Wobkelina Harms. So far there is no controversy. The controversy arises out of the fact that, at the time the defendant's judgment was rendered, the property belonged to the judgment debtor. The plaintiff acquired title by purchase and conveyance from him, after the rendition of the judgment. The defendant contends that the lien of the judgment was in force upon the property after it passed into the plaintiff's hands. The plaintiff contends that it had been divested by reason of an execution sale.

The fact is that this property had been mortgaged to secure certain promissory notes. On a part of the notes one Morton obtained judgment and a decree of foreclosure. On others of the notes, which by their terms matured later, the defendant obtained judgment and a decree of foreclosure. Morton sold under his decree, and bid in the property for the amount of his judgment; and the plaintiff, as grantee of the judgment debtor, redeemed from Morton. In our opinion, the property became divested of the defendant's lien. The question presented has been substantially ruled upon several times. The purchaser of property from a judgment debtor, which has been sold upon execution, has the same right of redemption which the judgment debtor had. He may redeem by paying the amount for which the property was sold, with interest. The result of his redemption, however, is not the same as if the judgment debtor had made no sale and conveyance, and had made redemption himself. In such a case, of course, all the judgments against him, which would be liens upon the property if it had not been sold upon execution, would be liens after redemption. He would sustain the same relation to the land that he would to any other land which he might own in the same county. If Harm S. Harms had not sold and conveyed the land in controversy, but had himself redeemed, the defendant's judgment would have been a...