Ohlquest v. Farwell

• Decision Date: 10 March 1887
• Citation: 71 Iowa 231,32 N.W. 277
• Parties: OHLQUEST v. FARWELL AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

71 Iowa 231

32 N.W. 277

OHLQUEST

v.FARWELL AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 10, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Linn county.

A motion by defendant Becker to vacate and set aside a judgment in this case against him, as well as the other defendants, was, by order of the district court, overruled. From that order he now appeals to this court.J. S. Stacy and J. C. Davis, for appellants.

Tenny, Bashford & Tenny and Herrick & Doxsee, for appellees.

BECK, J.

1. The facts involved in this case are as follows: J. V. Farwell & Co., G. Becker, and another firm brought actions by attachment in the district court of Jones county against A. & P. Ohlquest. Two other actions by other firms were brought in the same court by attachment against Ohlquest Bros. The defendants in all of these actions were the same. They were doing business under the firm name of Ohlquest Bros. in both Jones and Linn counties. Writs of attachment were issued in the cases to the sheriffs of Jones and Linn counties, and levied upon separate stocks of goods found in each county; Farwell & Co.'s attachment being levied first in each county, Becker's second in Jones county, and last in Linn. Judgments were rendered in all of these actions, and such proceedings were had, after considerable litigation and delay, that Farwell & Co.'s and Becker's judgments were satisfied in full from the avails of the property attached.

N. A. Sunburg, claiming to own the goods seized in Jones county, brought an action against the sheriff to recover the value thereof. Farwell & Co. were finally substituted as defendants. N. A. Sunburg and F. B. Ohlquest, who claimed to own the goods seized in Linn county, brought an action for their value against the sheriff of that county, in which Farwell & Co., Becker, and other attaching creditors were substituted as defendants. It thus appears that separate suits, one in Jones and the other in Linn county, having different parties both as defendants and plaintiffs, were pending for the recovery of the value of the goods which had been seized and sold upon the attachments, and the avails thereof, appropriated to the satisfaction of Farwell & Co.'s and Becker's judgments. The issues in these cases involved the question whether the goods were the property of the Ohlquests, and whether the sales by them to the plaintiffs in these suits were valid or fraudulent, and therefore void. Herrick & Doxsee and E. Keeler were the attorneys for Farwell & Co., Becker, and some other attaching creditors, both in the attachment suits and in the actions against the parties brought to recover the value of the goods. The litigation in the suits last named was protracted and strongly contested on both sides. A written agreement was finally entered into between the attorneys just mentioned, representing the parties we have named, and the attorneys on the other...