The First National Bank of Grundy Center v. Snyder Bros.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1890 |
| Citation | 44 N.W. 356,79 Iowa 191 |
| Parties | THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GRUNDY CENTER v. SNYDER BROS. et al |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1890.
Appeal from Grundy District Court.--HON. C. F. COUCH, Judge.
ACTION in equity asking certain foreclosures, and for other relief. The case was submitted upon the issues joined on plaintiff's substituted and supplemental petitions, and the answers of the defendants thereto, and decree entered in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendants Snyder Bros., H. P. Snyder, J. M. Snyder, and A. N. Woods, assignee of Snyder Bros., appeal.
It appears without controversy that Snyder Bros., a partnership doing business as hardware merchants, and J. M. Snyder individually, were indebted to the plaintiff bank in the sum of about five thousand dollars, evidenced by notes and an account for which plaintiff was insisting on security, and to secure which they requested a mortgage on Snyder Bros.' stock of goods, which they declined to give because of the effect it would have upon their credit. J. M. Snyder, who transacted the business under consideration on behalf of his firm, being the owner of the premises upon which their business was carried on, and of certain other lots, on the twenty-first day of April, 1886, executed his two warranty deeds therefor to the plaintiff; his wife, Anna C., joining therein. The consideration named in the deed for the storehouse property is two thousand dollars, and in the other, seven hundred dollars. On the same day, and as a part of the same transaction, the plaintiff executed to J. M Snyder its two bonds, in one of which it agreed to convey to him said storehouse property upon payment of two thousand dollars on or before April 21, 1891, with ten per cent interest, payable annually, according to the tenor of his certain promissory note; he to keep the property insured for two thousand dollars for the benefit of plaintiff, and pay all taxes; non-payment of any of the sums within twenty days after due to entitle plaintiff to declare the contract at an end. By the other bond the plaintiff agreed to convey to J M. Snyder the other lots deeded to it, upon the payment of seven hundred dollars on or before April 21, 1891, with ten per cent. interest, payable annually, according to the tenor of his promissory note, Snyder to pay all taxes, and a failure to pay any of the sums for twenty days to entitle plaintiff to declare the contract at an end. At the same time J. M. Snyder executed to plaintiff the two promissory notes of Snyder Bros. ,--one for two thousand dollars and one for seven hundred dollars,--due "on or before five years after date," with ten per cent. interest, payable annually; and the plaintiff gave to him a receipt against a note for two thousand dollars, and surrendered to him a note for four hundred dollars, and applied the balance on interest and by credit on deposit account. On the same day, and as a part of the same transaction, a "duplicate lease and agreement" was executed by the plaintiff and Snyder Bros., whereby the plaintiff leased to John M. Snyder and H. P. Snyder said storehouse property for five years from that date, at the yearly rent of six hundred dollars, payable monthly, in advance; Snyders to keep the building insured for two thousand dollars for the benefit of the bank; a failure to do which should work a forfeiture of the lease. It is further agreed therein by Snyder that plaintiff should have a lien upon all fixtures, stocks or merchandise kept or used on the premises, for rents due or to become due, whether exempt from execution or not, and that, in case of failure on their part to keep all the covenants, the plaintiff might, at its option, declare the lease void. The actual rental value of the storehouse property was twenty-five to thirty dollars per month. Snyder Bros. remained in possession until December 10, 1886, when they made a general assignment for the benefit of their creditors, since which their assignee has had control and possession, and received the rents. Snyder Bros. failed to pay the taxes assessed against the storehouse and personal property, and to keep the same insured, whereupon plaintiff, to preserve its security, paid the taxes and took out insurance.
On December 22, 1886, Snyder Bros. executed a chattel mortgage to the Iowa Barb & Steel Wire Company on their stock of goods, to secure the payment of $ 990.82. The personal property was sold under stipulation by the assignee, the proceeds to be held to abide the orders of the court. The decree entered June 7, 1888, against Snyder Bros. and J. M. Snyder and H. P. Snyder is: (1) Judgment in favor of plaintiff for $ 2,492.43, with interest at ten per cent. on $ 2,455.66, and six per cent. on $ 36.77, from date, with foreclosure of the title-bond on the storehouse property. (2) Judgment in favor of plaintiff for $ 866.53, with interest at ten per cent. on $ 855.97, and at six per cent. on $ 10.56 thereof, from date, with foreclosure of the other title-bond, and barring defendants, and all claiming under them, from all rights except the right to redeem. (3) Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for $ 2,757.28, with interest at ten per cent. on $ 2,616.17, and at six per cent. on $ 142.15, thereof, from date, and declaring the same a lien upon the personal property described in the lease, and ordering the application of the proceeds of the sale thereof to the payment of said judgment. (4) Judgment in favor of the Iowa Barb & Steel Wire Company for $ 1,107.01, with interest at eight per cent., and declaring the same a second lien on said personal property.
AFFIRMED.
Rea & Hayes, for appellants.
Boies, Husted & Boies, for appellee.
I.
Appellants' contention is that said several instruments were executed as parts of one transaction, and must therefore be construed together; that thus construed they show that the consideration for the deeds and bonds was the extension of time on the twenty-seven hundred dollars indebtedness, and as security therefor, thus constituting an equitable mortgage; and that the consideration for the lease was the extension of time for the balance of the indebtedness due to plaintiff, and as security therefor. Appellants also contend that, as a part of the same transaction, it was orally agreed between the parties that such were the considerations and purposes of said instruments. Appellee contends that the agreement was that...
To continue reading
Request your trial