Thatcher v. The Union Scale Company
| Decision Date | 09 March 1888 |
| Citation | 37 N.W. 102,74 Iowa 117 |
| Parties | THATCHER et al. v. THE UNION SCALE COMPANY |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided December, 1887
Appeal from Wayne District Court.--HON. R. C. HENRY, Judge.
ACTION in chancery, to enjoin the sale of a railroad scale upon a chattel mortgage to defendant. After a trial on the merits, a decree was rendered granting the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.
AFFIRMED.
E. S Wishard, for appellant.
W. H Tedford, for appellees.
I.
The undisputed facts of the case are these: The plaintiffs, on February 28, 1885, leased to T. A. Hill certain lands, and the right to mine coal thereon. The lease, among other conditions, provides that the lessee "shall advance the money needed to put in scales, * * * and to recover the same by withholding one-third of the gross royalty accruing until the debt is discharged." March 5, 1885, Hill purchased of defendant the scales in controversy, upon an order in which he stipulates that defendant shall not relinquish its title to the scales until they are fully paid for. On the twenty-first day of the same month, the scale having been put in, Hill charged it to plaintiffs. On the sixth of October, 1885, a corporation, to whom Hill had transferred his interest in the lease and the mining property, executed to defendant a chattel mortgage upon the scales to secure the payment of the purchase money. This chattel mortgage defendant is seeking to foreclose by sale of the property. It is not shown that plaintiffs had notice of the conditions of the contract under which the scales were purchased by Hill, and it is not claimed that defendant sold the scales upon plaintiffs' credit. Plaintiffs are now in possession of the property leased and the scales. Plaintiffs testify that they did not know that the scales had not been paid for until after the mortgage had been executed. Hill, and one of the officers of the corporation succeeding to his rights, testify to the contrary. Plaintiffs claim that Hill or the corporation, or both, are owing them for the royalty on coal, provided for in the lease, which Hill and an officer of the corporation deny.
II. Counsel on both sides of the case discuss the question whether the scale became and is a part of the realty. We need not consider this question, for the reason that we think the case may be determined upon other grounds.
III. It is plain to our minds that, upon the undisputed facts of the case, plaintiffs acquired the title to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial