Haugo v. Staley

• Decision Date: 10 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 29918.,29918.
• Citation: 151 N.W. 1099
• Parties: HAUGO v. STALEY ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

151 N.W. 1099

HAUGO

v.STALEY ET AL.

No. 29918.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 10, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Cerro Gordo County; M. F. Edwards, Judge.

“Not to be officially reported.”

The plaintiff recovered judgment against W. O. Staley for the sum of $1,067.13 and costs December 19, 1912. This action is brought to subject to the payment thereof certain land and personal property. A decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's petition, and he appeals. Affirmed.T. A. Kingland, of Lake Mills, for appellant.

Rule & Shipley, of Mason City, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the defendant W. O. Staley exchanged 120 acres of land in Boone county, subject to an incumbrance of $4,800, to the defendant Monnie Nelson for 240 acres in Cerro Gordo county, subject to an incumbrance of $15,000. This incumbrance was later increased to nearly $17,000, and Staley exchanged this land for 120 acres of land in Worth county, subject to mortgages amounting to $4,800, to Nelson for the 240 acres, subject to the incumbrance as stated, Staley agreeing to pay a difference of $1,700 At the same time Staley and wife executed a chattel mortgage on all of Staley's personal property, including farm crops to the defendant Monnie Nelson, securing the payment of the $4,800 incumbrance on the 120 acres in Worth county, the $1,700 difference, and something over $1,100 of other indebtedness. Subject to this, Staley executed a mortgage on the same personal property to secure his wife the payment of $2,000. In this suit the plaintiff seeks to have the conveyance of the 240 acres set aside and it subjected to the payment of plaintiff's judgment, and also prays that the chattel mortgages be set aside. The court, after hearing all the testimony, dismissed plaintiff's petition. There are some suspicious circumstances, but upon the examination of the entire record, in the light of the record and the better opportunity possessed by the trial court of weighing the testimony of witnesses, all of whom were before that tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with its conclusions. No useful purpose will be served by reviewing the evidence in detail.

The decree of dismissal is affirmed.

DEEMER, C. J., and LADD, GAYNOR, and SALINGER, JJ., concur.