Patterson v. Seaton

• Decision Date: 21 June 1886
• Citation: 70 Iowa 689,28 N.W. 598
• Parties: PATTERSON AND ANOTHER v. SEATON, SHERIFF.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 689

28 N.W. 598

PATTERSON AND ANOTHER

v.SEATON, SHERIFF.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 21, 1886.

Appeal from Linn circuit court.

Action in replevin to recover the possession of a stock of goods and merchandise, seized and held by defendant, as sheriff, upon certain writs of attachment. The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment rendered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.Young & Smith and William G. Thompson, for appellants.

Frank C. Honnel and Davis & Brooks, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The goods in controversy were seized by defendant as the property of Patterson & Smith, upon writs of attachment issued in actions brought against them in separate suits of many creditors. The plaintiffs claim property in the goods, and the right of possession thereof, under a sale made by Patterson & Smith to them before the levy of the attachments. The defendant alleges in his answer to the petition that the sale under which plaintiffs claim the property is fraudulent and void, for the reason that it was made with the purpose on the part of Patterson & Smith to hinder, delay, and defeat their creditors, and this purpose and intention was shared by plaintiffs. Upon the issues joined in the case, involving the validity of the sale, the district court found for defendant, and rendered judgment accordingly.

2. The principal question in the case involves the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of the district court. We are required, in deciding this question, to determine whether the district court, in the exercise of an honest and intelligent discretion, found the facts supporting the judgment. Unless the abstract upon which the cause is submitted to us shows such an absence of evidence supporting the judgment that a presumption thereon arises that the decision of the court below was the result of passion or prejudice, we are required to affirm the judgment. In our opinion, the decision finds sufficient support in the testimony before us.

The evidence shows that Patterson & Smith, at the time of the sale, were insolvent, owing largely more than the value of the property held by them. Among their creditors was A. C. Daniels, one of the plaintiffs, who had loaned them about $4,500. Two or three days before the sale, A. W. Patterson, the other plaintiff, who is a brother of John W. Patterson, of the firm of Patterson & Smith, appeared in Marion, where the firm and Daniels were both doing business, with claims against the firm, and against his brother individually. The brother introduced him to Daniels. Thereupon A. W. Patterson and Daniels agreed to and did form a copartnership for the purchase of the stock of goods held by the insolvent firm, paying therefor $11,200, by canceling the claims each held against the firm, and against John W. Patterson individually. Daniels' claim was $4,500 against the firm. His interest in the new copartnership was to that extent. A. W. Patterson held claims against the firm amounting to something over $2,500, and against his brother individually to over $1,400. The claims were canceled in payment for the stock, and A. W. Patterson gave his note for $2,100 to the firm, and paid, or...