Muir v. Blake
| Decision Date | 22 March 1882 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 621,57 Iowa 662 |
| Parties | MUIR v. BLAKE ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jones District Court.
ON the 15th day of January, 1879, James Crawford was in possession of certain improved land in Jones county, and on that day he executed to the plaintiff herein a chattel mortgage, that part thereof descriptive of the mortgaged property being as follows: "All the crops raised by me in any part of Jones county for the term of three years * * *." The mortgage was recorded January 19, 1879. In the year 1879 Crawford raised a crop of corn on the premises of which he was in possession at the time of the execution of the mortgage, and in September, 1879, while he was still in possession, the defendant, Blake, who was at that time a judgment creditor of Crawford, caused an execution to issue upon his judgment and a levy thereof to be made upon the growing corn. The officer who made the levy required an indemnifying bond to be given him by Blake, and the defendant Crane became surety thereon. The officer sold the corn, and this action was brought upon the indemnifying bond to recover the value of the corn. Upon a trial to the court judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
Welch & Welch, for appellants.
Herrick & Doxsee, for appellee.
I.
This case was submitted at a former term, and an opinion was filed affirming the judgment of the court below. A petition for rehearing was granted, upon which the cause has been more fully argued than it was at its first submission. After a thorough examination of the case in the light of the re-argument, we have reached a conclusion different from that heretofore announced.
In considering the case we will confine ourselves to the one question, as to the validity of this mortgage between the mortgagee and a creditor of the mortgagor. Whether or not it would be a valid and binding instrument between the parties to it, we need not consider, simply because the question is not presented by the facts in the case.
Nor will we now consider the question as to what crops, whether those which had been raised in Jones county, or those to be raised after the execution of the mortgage, are referred to therein. The plain meaning of the language above quoted from the mortgage, when taken in connection with the other provisions therein, is that it refers to crops to be raised thereafter.
Two questions are presented by counsel. The first is whether a mortgage is valid as against the creditors of the mortgagor upon crops to be planted and grown. In Scharfenburg v Bishop, 35 Iowa 60, the mortgage was upon all the stock in trade of the mortgagor, and it contained this clause "including any and all fixtures and stock now, or hereafter, kept in my said leather business, in the city of Keokuk, Lee county, and State of Iowa." The mortgagee placed the mortgage in the hands of the sheriff for foreclosure, who took possession of the stock in trade including that which had been added after the mortgage was made, and a compromise was made between the mortgagor and mortgagee by which the latter took possession of all the property and credited the former with the agreed value. Afterwards other creditors attached the property in the hands of the mortgagee and claimed that the mortgage, in so far as it covered after acquired property, was void. It was held that a mortgage which included property afterwards to be acquired was a valid and binding instrument. The same rule was recognized in Brown v. Allen,35 Iowa 306; and in Stephens v. Pence, 56 Iowa 257, 9 N.W. 215, the case of Scharfenburg v. Bishop was followed, the case being a controversy between the mortgagee and an execution creditor of the mortgagor's. In Fejavary v. Broesch, 52 Iowa 88, 2 N.W. 963, it was held that where there was a lease of a farm for six years, a stipulation therein that rents due and to become due under the lease should be a perpetual lien on any and all crops raised on the farm * * * ...
To continue reading
Request your trial