Inman v. Ball
| Decision Date | 19 March 1885 |
| Citation | 22 N.W. 666,65 Iowa 543 |
| Parties | INMAN v. BALL ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Circuit Court.
THE plaintiff claims $ 2,000 of the defendants as damages for unlawfully, willfully and maliciously taking from her private dwelling certain household goods, and converting the same to their own use. Defendant, John M. Ball, in his answer to the petition, claimed that the plaintiff executed a chattel mortgage upon said property to him, to secure the payment of part of the purchase price of the goods, and that he afterwards assigned said mortgage to his co-defendant Harrison, who foreclosed the mortgage by putting the same in the hands of the defendant Ballou, who was sheriff, and that he (said Ball) only acted in the matter by pointing out the goods covered by the mortgage, and that no other goods were seized or taken from the plaintiff excepting such as were included in the mortgage. The defendant Harrison answered by setting up substantially the same facts, and he further averred that the goods were sold in accordance with the terms of the mortgage by the defendant Ballou, and the proceeds turned over to him (said Harrison) in satisfaction of the mortgage. The defendant Ballou admitted taking the goods, but alleged that none were taken excepting such as were mortgaged, and that the goods were identified and pointed out to him by the defendant Ball. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and against the defendants, Ball and Harrison, for $ 400. Defendants appeal.
REVERSED.
John Chaney and Rowell & Milligan, for appellants.
Stuart Bros., for appellee.
I.
The court instructed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover unless she established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants took goods which were not included in the mortgage. This instruction is in full accord with the evidence, and it is not claimed that any recovery can be had for taking the mortgaged property. The plaintiff claimed damages for the willful and malicious seizure and conversion of her goods. The goods in question consisted of the furniture, bedsteads, bedding, etc., which had been used in a hotel. The plaintiff purchased part of this property from Ball, from whom she leased the hotel, and she executed the mortgage to secure the payment of part of the purchase-money. She previously owned some goods of about the same kind and quality, which she put in the hotel. The hotel was destroyed by fire, but nearly all of the furniture bedding, etc., were saved. It was stored by the plaintiff in another building, and some of it was used by the plaintiff, and her son and daughter, in certain furnished rooms which they occupied.
There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether any property was seized and taken by the defendants, excepting such as was included in the mortgage. The plaintiff in her testimony stated that certain articles were taken, and she fixed the value thereof at about the sum of $ 50. The great preponderance of the evidence is that, even if the property specified by the plaintiff was taken, it was of very much less value than $ 50. As an example, the plaintiff testified that an old feather-bed which had been in use for thirty years was taken, and that it was of the value of $ 20. All of the other evidence in the case shows that the value was but $ 3 or $ 4. But, as there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether property not included in the mortgage was taken, and as to its value, we would not be warranted in disturbing a...
To continue reading
Request your trial