Pike v. Gleason

• Decision Date: 08 December 1882
• Citation: 14 N.W. 210,60 Iowa 150
• Parties: PIKE v. GLEASON ET AL.; SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF AURORA v. SAME. SAME v. SAME
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

14 N.W. 210

60 Iowa 150

PIKE v. GLEASON ET AL.; SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF AURORA v. SAME.

SAME v. SAME

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 8, 1882

Appeal from Jones Circuit Court.

ACTIONS to foreclosure separate mortgages. There was a decree in each case granting the relief prayed for in the respective petitions. Defendants in each case appeal.

AFFIRMED.

C. E Wheeler, Pratt & Carr, for appellants.

Sheean & McCarn, for appellees.

OPINION

BECK J.

I.

Each of these cases rests upon substantially the same facts. They were tried upon the same testimony and are submitted together in this court. The controlling facts of the respective cases so far as it becomes necessary to state them, in view of the questions upon which our decision is based, are these: Griswold and wife executed the mortgages in suit. The mortgage involved in the second action was given to Huber, those in the first and third, to Crosby. Huber transferred the mortgage executed to him, with the note which it was given to secure, to Crosby, who afterwards transferred it, and the note and mortgage involved in the second case, to the Second National Bank of Aurora. Crosby transferred the note and mortgage, which are the foundation of the first action, to Pike, the plaintiff therein. Subsequently to these transfers, Stivers obtained a judgment against Griswold, the mortgagor, in the several cases, and caused the land covered by the several mortgages to be sold, bidding it in and taking a sheriff's certificate, which he assigned to defendant Gleason, to whom a sheriff's deed was afterwards executed.

After the transfer of the respective mortgages and notes as above stated, Griswold and wife conveyed the lands covered by the mortgages to Crosby.

Gleason now insists that the lands were conveyed to Crosby in satisfaction of the respective mortgage debts; that the respective assignees of the mortgages stand in the shoes of Crosby, not being entitled to the protection of endorsers of commercial paper, and that the mortgages cannot be enforced as liens paramount to his title under the sheriff's sale and deed.

II. The evidence fails to show that the conveyance of the lands was made to Crosby with the intention thereby to satisfy the mortgages; indeed the proof authorizes the conclusion that such intention was entertained by neither Crosby nor Griswold, but it was the purpose that the mortgages should stand. The positive evidence of Crosby is to this effect, and he is corroborated by Griswold. Upon such intention of ...