McKinney v. Clark Brown Grain Co.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 46192.,46192. |
| Citation | 232 Iowa 1235,7 N.W.2d 798 |
| Parties | McKINNEY v. CLARK BROWN GRAIN CO. et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Jasper County; J. G. Patterson, Judge.
Action at law for the purchase price of corn sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. Petition of intervention by the holder of a chattel mortgage. Judgment for intervener; plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Raymond E. Hanke, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Cross & Hamill, of Newton, for appellees.
Plaintiff brought this action against the defendant grain company for $104.46 with interest for corn sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. Intervener in his petition of intervention asserted plaintiff was indebted to him on a promissory note in the amount of $93.97 with interest at seven percent from and after June 15, 1938; that the note was secured by a chattel mortgage signed by plaintiff, his brother and mother, covering this corn and other property; that he did not give consent to plaintiff to sell the corn upon which he had the mortgage lien and that on the day of sale he notified defendant of his lien and thereafter received the $104.97 from the defendant. Intervener further alleged that he received from the sale of two horses and three cattle owned by the plaintiff and included in the chattel mortgage the sum of $132.73. That from the proceeds he paid off a prior mortgage to the Farm Security Administration in full, or $156.22, and applied the balance upon his note which left a balance due intervener on the note of $18.79 with interest at seven percent from April 19, 1939. Defendant filed an answer admitting the payment to intervener of the $104.97 and plaintiff filed a reply to the petition of intervention alleging in substance that at the time he executed and delivered the chattel mortgage to intervener, the latter orally promised that he would in no manner interfere with any agreements or arrangements made with the representatives of the Farm Security Administration relative to the payment of its obligation.
Upon these issues the case was tried to the court without a jury and the court rendered judgment in favor of the intervener and against the plaintiff for $20, the balance due on plaintiff's note to intervener, and $2.28 attorney's fee in favor of intervener's attorney.
It is unnecessary to comment upon all the evidence in the case for plaintiff complains of but one error. Plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining intervener's objections to testimony as to a conversation had with the intervener, either about the security or anything else in connection with the signing of the chattel mortgage and note which he gave to the intervener.
We are referred to two places in the record where plaintiff asserts the court erred in sustaining objections. While plaintiff was on the witness stand his attorney asked him the following question: “Now prior to the time that you gave Mr. Hamill this note and mortgage, did you have any conversation with him about the security or anything else in connection with it?”
A little later the following question was put to the same witness: “Were all the matters affecting the property in the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial