Hunt v. Moore

• Decision Date: 28 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 42684.,42684.
• Citation: 258 N.W. 114,219 Iowa 451
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: HUNT, HILL & BETTS v. MOORE.

219 Iowa 451

258 N.W. 114

HUNT, HILL & BETTS

v.MOORE.

No. 42684.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 28, 1934.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; F. H. Rice, Judge.

Plaintiffs commenced an action in equity to establish that a money judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant is a lien against defendant's homestead, on the ground that said judgment was obtained upon a debt contracted prior to the acquisition of the homestead. Trial to the court. Lower court held that judgment was not a lien against the homestead. Plaintiffs appeal. Opinion states the facts.

Affirmed.

Hays, Baron & Mathews, of Sioux City, for appellants.

D. F. Loepp, and Gill & Gill, all of Sioux City, for appellee.

MITCHELL, Chief Justice.

Early in the month of May, 1915, the world was shocked to hear of the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine. One of the passengers on this great ocean liner was a Dr. Moore. He was fortunate enough to get into a lifeboat, which was lowered from the sinking ship, but shortly thereafter the lifeboat was smashed to pieces. Dr. Moore, clinging to a barrel, floated in the ocean for several hours until he was rescued. As a result of the experience, he received a severe shock to his nervous system and was injured. He also lost all of his personal property.

Out of this tragedy arises the lawsuit which now confronts us.

In May of 1916 Dr. Moore, the appellee in this case, signed a contract with what was known as the “Survivors' Committee,” authorizing such committee to employ counsel to prosecute his claim against the German government. Said contract also authorized the committee to fix the fee for such counsel at not more than 20 per cent. of the amount recovered. Shortly after the appellee signed this contract and acting thereunder, the committee employed the appellant law firm to prosecute appellee's claim against the German government, and fixed the compensation of the law firm of Hunt, Hill & Betts at 20 per cent. of the amount recovered. The attorneys immediately accepted such employment and actively engaged in the work of preparing and handling appellee's claim along with the claims of other victims of the Lusitania disaster. In the year 1920 the appellee acquired homestead real estate and has owned the same continuously since then. On February 21, 1924, the Mixed Claims Commission adjudged that Germany should pay the United States on behalf of appellee $10,000, with interest at 5 per cent. from November 1, 1923, for personal injuries, and $1,250, with interest at 5 per cent. from May 7, 1915, for property loss. The payment of this amount of money was not made until September 24, 1928, when the appellee received a check for $14,570.31. As is often the case, the appellee did not pay his attorneys, and the appellants Hunt, Hill & Betts commenced an action to recover fees under their contract. On October 15, 1930, judgment was entered in the office of the district court of Woodbury county, Iowa, for 20 per cent. of the recovery, with interest at 6 per cent. to the date of the judgment. This judgment was appealed by the appellee to this court and was affirmed, and procedendo was transmitted to the district court showing such affirmance. See Hunt, Hill & Betts v. Moore, 213 Iowa, 1323, 239 N. W. 112.

On the 16th day of December, 1930, appellants commenced this present action to subject the real estate, claimed by appellee to be his homestead, to the lien of said judgment. On May 21, 1932, appellee filed his voluntary petition in bankruptcy, and on November17, 1933, he was discharged in bankruptcy; the creditors receiving nothing. Appellants filed their claim in the bankruptcy proceeding as a secured claim, and it was allowed as a secured claim. The bankruptcy court set apart the real estate here involved as appellee's homestead on January 9, 1933.

The lower court in this action denied the relief asked for by the appellants, and from that judgment the appellants have appealed to this court.

[1][2][3] There is but one question in the case before us, and that is, “When was the debt contracted upon which the judgment was obtained?” “Was it contracted prior to 1920, when the appellee purchased the homestead involved in the case at bar?” The contract...