Manson v. Simplot
| Decision Date | 22 January 1903 |
| Parties | ELIZABETH MANSON, v. ALEXANDER SIMPLOT et al, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dubuque District Court.--HON. FRED O'DONNELL, Judge.
AN action to foreclose a real estate mortgage given by Alexander and Charles Simplot to secure their joint note of $ 10,000. The defendant Franklin A. Simplot was the son of Alexander Simplot, and when he was about sixteen years of age he recovered of the Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Company $ 4,800 for an injury which he received while in its employ. His father received this money as his guardian, and immediately used $ 3,800 of it to pay on the note given by himself and his brother to this plaintiff. At the time he made this payment, he made his individual note to his son Franklin, and, as security therefor, executed a second mortgage on the property covered by the plaintiff's mortgage. This note was left with Mr. Lyon for safe-keeping for the son, and the mortgage was properly recorded. This action was commenced in December, 1897, and Franklin A Simplot was at that time past twenty-four years of age. By cross-petition he alleged that the $ 3,800 of his money paid by his father to the plaintiff was paid with the knowledge of the plaintiff that it was his money, and under an agreement with her that he should have an assignment of her mortgage for that amount, and should have a first lien on the property therefor. He asked for a judgment against his father for $ 3,800, with interest, and that it be declared a first lien on the interest of his father in the property covered by the plaintiff's mortgage. There was a decree of foreclosure for the plaintiff, adjudging her mortgage a first and superior lien on the premises. There was also a judgment in favor of Franklin A. Simplot against Alexander Simplot and his mortgage was decreed to be a second lien on the property. The defendant, Franklin A. Simplot appeals.
Affirmed.
Henderson Hurd, Lenehan and Keisel for appellant.
Lyon & Lyon for appellee.
The payment in question was made to the plaintiff's son, who is shown to have been her duly authorized agent to receive it, and whatever knowledge he had as to the character of the fund which was paid to him, or as to the authority or want of authority on the part of the guardian to so use it, must be imputed to the plaintiff, for under such circumstances the knowledge of the agent is that of the principal. Jones v. Bamford, 21 Iowa 217.
II. The guardian had no authority from the court to use his ward's money for the payment of his own debt, and in thus appropriating it he was acting wrongfully. Bates v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pan-American Life Ins. Co. v. Crymes
...J. 1287, 1307, 1064; Neely v. Craig, 139 So. 835; Frazier v. Jeakins, 57 L. R. A. 575; Smith v. Smith, 210 F. 947. In the case of Mansen v. Semplot, 93 N.W. 75, a father, guardian of his son, took the ward's money and paid his own debts with it, giving his note to his son, secured by a seco......
- Wrege v. Jones
- Parsons v. Manser
-
Wickham v. Evans
...was by defendant's agent; and it must be held responsible for that fraud. Baldwin v. Davis, 118 Iowa, 38, 91 N. W. 778;Manson v. Simplot, 119 Iowa, 94, 93 N. W. 75;Mankin v. Mankin, 91 Iowa, 407, 59 N. W. 292. Plaintiff is not to be held liable for the fraud of defendant's agent Diltz in tr......