Neff v. Manuel

• Decision Date: 31 October 1903
• Parties: J. W. NEFF, Appellee, v. RICHARD MANUEL et al., Defendants, MAUD MANUEL, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

97 N.W. 73

121 Iowa 706

J. W. NEFF, Appellee, v. RICHARD MANUEL et al., Defendants, MAUD MANUEL, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 31, 1903

Appeal from Keokuk District Court.--HON. A. R. DEWEY, Judge.

ACTION on a promissory note, aided by attachment. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff. This appeal is by Maud Manuel, claiming to be the owner of certain moneys attached by garnishment, and which moneys were ordered paid in satisfaction of the judgment against the principal defendant. The opinion sufficiently states the facts.

Reversed.

Brown & Willcockson for appellant.

Stockman & Hamilton for appellee.

OPINION

BISHOP, C. J.

There is some confusion in the record, but therefrom we extract the situation to be as follows: Alfred Manuel father of the defendant Richard Manuel, died in 1883 intestate. At the time of his death he was the owner of eighty acres of land in Keokuk county, which he had occupied as a homestead. He left surviving him his wife and several children, including said Richard. The widow continued to occupy the farm until her death, which occurred in July 1896. She never took any steps to have her interests in the estate of her husband set off to her, and she also died intestate. In October, 1890, Richard Manuel conveyed his undivided interest in the farm to his wife, A. M. Manuel, and the deed was duly recorded. In January, 1896, A. M. Manuel, and her husband, Richard, conveyed said undivided interest to their infant daughter, Maud Manuel. It seems that, following the death of the widow of Alfred Manuel, proceedings were had in the nature of an action for partition, resulting in a decree, of date October, 1899, in which the rights and interests of the several heirs in and to said real estate were fixed and determined. The fact that Maud Manuel holds a deed from Richard and A. M. Manuel of their interest is recited, and it is decreed that the said Maud is the owner of an undivided one-seventh interest in the property. The entire property is ordered sold, and referees are appointed for that purpose. It appears that at the time this action was commenced a sale had taken place, and the referees were in possession of the money derived from such sale. The note here in suit was executed to plaintiff by Richard and A. M. Manuel jointly in July, 1895. At the time of bringing suit, plaintiff caused the referees to be garnished under the writ of attachment issued in his favor, and their answers taken disclose the facts substantially as above stated. Thereupon plaintiff filed a pleading controverting the answers of the garnishees, and setting up that at the time said conveyance was made to Maud, and now, the said Richard and A. M. Manuel were and are insolvent; that said conveyance was made without consideration, and to defraud this plaintiff and prevent him from collecting the indebtedness sued upon. Accordingly he prays that the garnishees may be directed to pay over to him, of the funds in their hands, an amount sufficient to cancel said indebtedness. To this pleading the garnishees did not appear. Maud Manuel appeared thereto by her guardian and filed a petition of intervention, and this was answered by plaintiff. Later on, said Maud Manuel filed a further pleading, which is denominated a reply to the answer of plaintiff controverting the answer of the garnishees. Therein she asserts her right to the fund in the hands of the referees, pleads that said fund is...