Martindale v. Burch
| Decision Date | 09 December 1881 |
| Citation | 57 Iowa 291,10 N.W. 670 |
| Parties | MARTINDALE v. BURCH. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Adams circuit court.
This is an action for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage. There was a decree for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.Maxwell & Spurrier, for appellant.
Davis, Wells & Russell, for appellee.
On the twenty-fourth day of November, 1876, J. O. B. Scoby and George W. Hopp executed and delivered to George E. King a chattel mortgage on certain printing presses and printing material, to secure the payment of over $2,000, for which certain negotiable notes were given to King. Among these notes there were 10 for the sum of $80 each, described in the mortgage as of the date of August 7, 1876, and the first one to become due December 15, 1876, and one to become due on the fifteenth of each month thereafter. The note for $80, which became due June 15, 1877, was by mistake dated on June 15, 1876, instead of August 7, 1876, as intended by the parties. On June 10, 1877, this note was indorsed and transferred by King to the plaintiff. On the second day of January, 1879, defendant purchased the printing office and materials of Scoby & Hopp.
The question to be determined is whether the defendant, by his purchase of the property from Scoby & Hopp, holds it discharged of the lien for the amount of the note indorsed by King to the plaintiff? As between the parties to the mortgage and note, the mistake in the date of the note was wholly immaterial. The mortgage secured the debt, and a mere mistake in the date of the note was of no consequence. Notes secured by mortgage may be renewed, and new notes taken, and the mortgage remains security for the debt. These rules of the law are so familiar and well settled as to require no citation of authority for their support. It remains to be determined whether the defendant, Burch, has any rights in the matter in controversy superior to those of the mortgagors. This depends somewhat upon the evidence. It appears that when he made his purchase, a number of the other notes were still unpaid, and were held by one Sigler, who also has possession of the mortgage. Burch paid these notes, and on inquiry of Sigler, Scoby & Hopp, was assured that there were no other notes outstanding and unpaid. He had no actual knowledge that the note in suit was owned by the plaintiff, nor that it was in existence. The mortgage at that time was of record, and not released. After Burch paid the Sigler notes, Sigler wrote to King and procured a written release of the mortgage. The release expressly states that King has no interest in the notes secured by the mortgage, having transferred them to other parties. When King indorsed the note in suit to the plaintiff, the effect thereof was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial