Schwartz v. Davis

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGRANGER
Citation57 N.W. 849,90 Iowa 324
Decision Date05 February 1894
PartiesSCHWARTZ v. DAVIS ET AL.

90 Iowa 324
57 N.W. 849

SCHWARTZ
v.
DAVIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 5, 1894.


Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; James D. Smythe, Judge.

The following is a statement of facts as made by appellant: “On the 29th of December, 1884, Samuel C. Davis & Co. sued out of the district court of Lee county an attachment against John H. Schwartz, the plaintiff herein, on the sole ground that Schwartz was then about to dispose of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. Defendant Joseph A. Smith is surety on the attachment bond for $45,000, which was filed in that case. The attachment was levied, on the day it was issued, on a stock of merchandise belonging to Schwartz, alleged to be of the value of $130,000. J. H. Hellman and others served written notice on the sheriff of their claims to the attached property by virtue of certain chattel mortgages thereon. Davis & Co. immediately furnished an indemnifying bond, and the property was held under the levy. The attachment suit was, on the application of Davis & Co., removed to the United States circuit court for the eastern division of the southern district of Iowa, in which court Davis & Co. filed a petition in equity, alleging the levy of said writ on said stock of merchandise, the property of Schwartz; that the levy was then of full force; and that by reason thereof they were entitled to have a lien thereon, to secure their debt sued for in the attachment suit. It was also alleged that Schwartz had made certain mortgages to Hellman and others, aggregating $42,110.11, on the attached property for the purpose of hindering and defrauding creditors. The mortgagees and Schwartz were made defendants, and the prayer was that the mortgages be set aside; that the property be decreed to be the sole property of Schwartz, subject to their attachment; and that defendants be restrained from suing for the same. In that suit Davis & Co. subsequently filed an application for a receiver to take charge of and sell the attached property, on the ground that there was danger of deterioration in value, etc. On the 17th of January, 1885, the court, after hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, appointed one Kiser receiver, and required him to cause the property to be appraised, and to sell and dispose of the same in such manner as he thought fit, at private sale, except that he should not sell at less than three-fourths of the appraised value; the net proceeds of sale to be deposited in court, to the credit of said equitable suit. The receiver being thus fully empowered by this order to sell the entire property, a pro forma order was entered by the same court five days later in the attachment suit, with the consent of Schwartz, that until further order Kiser should act as receiver in the attachment suit, making his reports, however, only in the equity case. The attached property was appraised at $80,169 net, and was sold by the receiver for $50,161 net. Schwartz and the mortgagees appeared and answered in the equitable suit, denying all allegations tending to show the invalidity of the mortgages. It was then stipulated that the attachment and equity suits, together with other attachment suits which had been subsequently brought against Schwartz, should be tried together. The causes were afterwards referred to P. T. Lomax, a master in chancery, for hearing, to report his findings of fact and conclusions of law for the information of the court. The master heard the causes, and on the 1st of January, 1890,--five years after the attachment was sued out,--filed a lengthy report of his findings and conclusions, to the effect that three...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...damages permitted where compensatory damages totaled $770.06; Davis v. Seeley, 1894, 91 Iowa 583, 60 N.W. 183; Schwartz v. Davis, 1894, 90 Iowa 324, 57 N.W. 849; Kuhn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1888, 74 Iowa 137, 37 N.W. 116; Saunders v. Mullen, 1885, 66 Iowa 728, 24 N. W. 529, reverse......
  • Martel v. Hall Oil Co., 1229
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 8, 1927
    ...damages should not be allowed; Shaffer v. Austin, (Kan.) 74 P. 1118; Seal v. Halcomb, (Tex.) 107 S.W. 916; Schwartz v. Davis, (Ia.) 57 N.W. 849; Co. v. Knowlton, (Ia.) 108 N.W. 770; Ladd v. Redle, supra. Witness fees should be allowed where a nominal party is called as a witness; Keith v. S......
  • Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 614.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 7, 1895
    ...would exist had no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation, been made or entered into' (Id. Sec. 2007). In Griswold v. Railroad Co. (Iowa) 57 N.W. 849, the supreme court of Iowa considered these statutes and the public policy of that state, and, after repeated argument and the most careful d......
  • Shannon v. Gaar, No. 46516.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 23, 1944
    ...v. Grocery Co., 105 Iowa 445, 75 N.W. 343;Kuhn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 74 Iowa 137, 37 N.W. 116;Schwartz v. Davis & Co., 90 Iowa 324, 57 N.W. 849;White v. Book Co., 164 Iowa 693, 146 N.W. 829. Appellees also correctly argue that the exclusion of evidence as to the amount or kind of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Amos v. Prom, Civ. No. 571.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • September 30, 1953
    ...damages permitted where compensatory damages totaled $770.06; Davis v. Seeley, 1894, 91 Iowa 583, 60 N.W. 183; Schwartz v. Davis, 1894, 90 Iowa 324, 57 N.W. 849; Kuhn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1888, 74 Iowa 137, 37 N.W. 116; Saunders v. Mullen, 1885, 66 Iowa 728, 24 N. W. 529, reverse......
  • Martel v. Hall Oil Co., 1229
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 8, 1927
    ...damages should not be allowed; Shaffer v. Austin, (Kan.) 74 P. 1118; Seal v. Halcomb, (Tex.) 107 S.W. 916; Schwartz v. Davis, (Ia.) 57 N.W. 849; Co. v. Knowlton, (Ia.) 108 N.W. 770; Ladd v. Redle, supra. Witness fees should be allowed where a nominal party is called as a witness; Keith v. S......
  • Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 614.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 7, 1895
    ...would exist had no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation, been made or entered into' (Id. Sec. 2007). In Griswold v. Railroad Co. (Iowa) 57 N.W. 849, the supreme court of Iowa considered these statutes and the public policy of that state, and, after repeated argument and the most careful d......
  • Shannon v. Gaar, No. 46516.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • September 23, 1944
    ...v. Grocery Co., 105 Iowa 445, 75 N.W. 343;Kuhn v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 74 Iowa 137, 37 N.W. 116;Schwartz v. Davis & Co., 90 Iowa 324, 57 N.W. 849;White v. Book Co., 164 Iowa 693, 146 N.W. 829. Appellees also correctly argue that the exclusion of evidence as to the amount or kind of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT