Teabout v. Jaffray
| Decision Date | 08 March 1888 |
| Citation | 36 N.W. 783,74 Iowa 28 |
| Parties | TEABOUT v. JAFFRAY ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Winnesheik county; C. F. GRANGER, Judge.
Action in equity by Emily Teabout against E. S. Jaffray & Co. et al., to enjoin the execution of a sheriff's deed. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.E. E. Cooley and W. E. Akers, for appellants.
L. Bullis and C. Wellington, for appellee.
On the 6th day of September, 1881, John Roper & Co. recovered a judgment against Francis Teabout, for about $1,600. At that time Emily Teabout, who was the wife of Francis Teabout, held the legal title to a farm in Winnesheik county, which was conveyed to her several years before by said Francis. Roper & Co. instituted a suit in equity to subject the property to their judgment, alleging that the conveyance under which Emily Teabout held it was executed for the purpose of fraudulently covering the property from the creditors of the husband. Emily Teabout was served with the original notice in the action, but she neglected to appear or answer therein, and on the 17th of January, 1882, judgment was entered against her by default, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. On the 5th day of August, 1882, the property was sold on execution by the sheriff for the satisfaction of the judgment, and Roper & Co. bid it in for the amount of their judgment and cost, and a certificate of purchase was issued to them by the sheriff. In October, 1882, Mrs. Teabout filed her petition, alleging that she was prevented by unavoidable casualty and misfortune from making her defense in the equity case of Roper & Co. against her, and praying that the judgment rendered therein be set aside, and that she be permitted to make her defense. That application came on for hearing at the January term, 1883, of the circuit court, the original judgment having been rendered in that court, and on the hearing she was denied relief. From that she appealed to this court, but at the December term, 1883, the judgment was affirmed. See 62 Iowa, 603, 17 N. W. Rep. 906. While the appeal was pending she instituted this suit, alleging in her petition that unless the sheriff, who was made a party, was enjoined from so doing, he would, on the expiration of the year allowed by the statute within which the property might be redeemed from the sale, execute a deed to the purchaser; and a temporary injunction was allowed by the judge. Soon after the order of affirmation was entered in this court, she paid to the clerk of the circuit court the amount which he represented was necessary to effect the redemption of the property from the sale, and he issued to her a certificate. It transpired afterwards, however, that the clerk had made a mistake in his compensation, and that the amount paid was not sufficient; but when this discovery was made she paid an additional sum, which, with that formerly paid, was sufficient to satisfy the money judgment against her husband. Pending the action Mrs. Teabout executed a conveyance of the property to Angie Valleau, and she was substituted as plaintiff. Roper & Co. also assigned the certificate of purchase to E. S. Jaffray & Co., and they intervened in the action. The judgment of the district court perpetuates the injunction.
It will be observed that the payment of the money was made after the expiration of one year from the date of the sale. Plaintiff has proceeded upon the theory that the right remaining to her after the sale of the premises was the statutory right of redemption, and that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case, she is in equity entitled to an extension of the time within...
To continue reading
Request your trial