State v. Steckel
| Decision Date | 17 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 34970.,34970. |
| Citation | 200 N.W. 235,198 Iowa 759 |
| Parties | STATE v. STECKEL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; Seneca Cornell, Judge.
The defendant was indicted and convicted on a charge of cheating by false pretenses under the provisions of Code, § 5041. He was adjudged to pay a fine of $500, from which judgment he has appealed. Reversed.
Superseding opinion in 192 N. W. 930.Jo R. Jaques, of Ottumwa, R. C. Leggett, of Fairfield, T. A. Goodson, of Bloomfield, and Havner, Flick & Powers and Scott M. Ladd, all of Des Moines, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., John Fletcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Buell McCash, Co. Atty., of Bloomfield, D. W. Bates, of Albia, and J. P. Starr, of Fairfield, for the State.
The specific fact charged in the indictment was that the defendant, by fraudulently representing the contents of a purported chattel mortgage, had obtained the execution thereof by the prosecuting witnesses,L. W. Barnhart, Elmer Barnhart, and S. T. Yates; that the defendant had represented the contents of the instrument as including only four certain notes to be secured thereby, whereas it did include three other notes additional thereto; and had further represented such contents to include only the live stock of the mortgagors, whereas, in fact, it did include all their personal property including farm implements. The record is unnecessarily voluminous and contains much matter that ought not to have been included. A former opinion was filed by us herein which was later set aside by the granting of a rehearing. To our minds, the serious question before us on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence in the record to sustain a conviction of the crime charged. Because of our conclusion on that question, we shall confine our discussion thereto.
[1] The chattel mortgage under consideration was executed on September 30, 1921. It purported to secure seven notes totaling more than $10,000, all of which were valid and subsisting notes owing to the defendant by the prosecuting witnesses. The mortgage also purported to cover all the personal property owned by the mortgagors either jointly or severally. A brief preliminary statement of the facts leading up to the transaction of September 30th will be of some aid to an understanding of the events of that day. L. W. Barnhart is the father of Elmer Barnhart and father-in-law of S. T. Yates. These three men were jointly interested in their farming operations. They moved into Davis county in March, 1920, upon a farm of 360 acres recently acquired by L. W. Barnhart. This farm was incumbered by a first mortgage for $27,500 bearing 5 1/2 per cent. interest. It is referred to in the record as the Fortune farm. Shortly thereafter, L. W. Barnhart purchased the Battin farm of 160 acres, lying across the road from the Fortune farm. He applied to the defendant for aid in financing the same. The defendant obtained for Barnhart a first mortgage loan thereon of $15,000, the mortgagee thereof being an outside corporation. He further loaned on behalf of himself the sum of $4,000 and took a second mortgage therefor. He loaned to him the further sum of $4,000 and took a second mortgage on the Fortune farm therefor. In the late summer of 1921, Barnhart applied to the defendant for further assistance. This had particular reference to a debt of approximately $2,000 which was pressing him for payment. This debt was held by one of the banks in Des Moines. The defendant responded to this request and took the note of the three prosecuting witnesses for $2,000. In the meantime, he had advanced to them other sums so that he was holding their notes for the sums of $80, $320, and $305. Concededly they were to give him a chattel mortgage to secure some or all of these notes. A skeleton mortgage was drawn on September 21st, which contained no description either of notes or of the property to be covered. Whether the mortgage was signed by any of the parties on that day is in dispute. It is the testimony of the defendant that L. W. Barnhart and wife signed on that day and that it was done for the convenience of the wife. The transaction, however, was not consummated until September 30th. On that day, the three prosecuting witnesses appeared at the defendant's bank for the purpose of the consummation. Concededly the final preparation of the mortgage was done on that day, and its final execution and delivery was had on that day. The mortgage actually signed contained the following description of property:
“All personal property of whatever nature or kind any of us now own and keep or which we hereafter may use, raise, keep or acquire, be it live stock, feed, grain, hay, straw, implements, harness, machinery, vehicles, automobiles, or any other personal property whatsoever, while this mortgage remains unsatisfied of record, and which consists principally at present of the following.
Forty-eight cows, twenty-one heifer calves, fourteen yearling heifers, eighteen bull calves, six steers--yearlings, twelve mares, seven geldings. One mare colt. Two horse colts. One stallion. One mower. Two cultivators. Two sulky plows. Four set harness. Sixty-four head of brood sows and shoats.”
It also contained the following description of notes to be secured thereby:
“One for two thousand dollars payable April 1, 1922, and $4,000.00 due March 1, 1923, and $4,000.00 due April 1, 1925, and $80.00 due October 1, 1922, and $320.00 due December 1, 1921, and $827.50 due December 1, 1921, and $305.00 due in installments payable with interest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum according to the tenor thereof, then these presents to be void, otherwise in full force.”
The foregoing description of the property and of the notes was all written into a blank form of mortgage by the use of a typewriter. The printed form of the mortgage also contained the following:
“This mortgage is also expressly made to secure any existing indebtedness, or future loans, advances or indebtedness now due or to become due from said grantors, or any or either of them, to said grantee, or his beneficiaries, and to be security for all attorney's fees incurred in enforcing the provisions hereof, or the collection of any claim arising hereunder.”
It appears that on September 30, it was discovered that the unpaid taxes of Barnhart amounted to $827.50. They were about to become delinquent, which delinquency would cause the first mortgages upon the farms to become due as for breach of condition.It became necessary, therefore, for the defendant to finance the Barnharts to that additional extent. It also appeared that prior to that date, L. W. Barnhart had bound himself to the holder of the mortgage of $27,500 to pay 7 1/2 per cent. interest thereon in lieu of 5 1/2 per cent. This operated to the prejudice of the defendant as a second mortgagee and impaired his security. The foregoing are the salient circumstances surrounding the parties immediately preceding the execution of the mortgage in question. Previous to that time there never had been any agreement by the defendant to advance money for the payment of the taxes, nor had he ever assented to the increase of the rate of interest on the first mortgage. Before the mortgage was signed, it was read by Elmer Barnhart an...
To continue reading
Request your trial