Wilson v. McCutchen Estate Claimant (In re Wilson)

• Decision Date: 17 January 1908
• Citation: 138 Iowa 225,114 N.W. 551
• Parties: IN RE WILSON. WILSON v. MCCUTCHEN ESTATE CLAIMANT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

138 Iowa 225

114 N.W. 551

IN RE WILSON.WILSON

v.MCCUTCHEN ESTATE CLAIMANT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 17, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Ida County; F. M. Powers, Judge.

Appeal from an order modifying a former decree. Affirmed.Chas. S. Macomber, for appellants.

J. B. Tourgee, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

C. L. Wilson made a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors to the plaintiff herein. Thereafter claims were filed with the assignee aggregating a large amount, among which were the claims of the appealing creditors and a claim of the estate of E. H. McCutchen for over $4,000. The appellants and the assignee filed objections to the claim of the McCutchen estate, alleging that the chattel mortgage given to secure the same was fraudulently withheld from record, and was therefore void as to the creditors of said C. L. Wilson. Issue was joined on the objections, and a trial had in equity in which the assignee and the appellants participated. The case was taken under advisement by the trial court, with the agreement among all parties that a judgment might be rendered in vacation. More than a year after the trial a decree was signed which adjudged the McCutchen mortgage to be invalid as to the appellants, because of its fraudulent character, and which established their claims in preference thereto and ordered them paid. The decree was silent as to the rights of the other general creditors which were represented by the assignee. This decree appears to have been prepared by the attorney for the appellants without consultation with or notice to the assignee or his counsel. Still later, but within a year, the assignee made application for a modification of the decree which would permit all the general creditors of C. L. Wilson to participate pro rata in the final distribution of the funds in his hands. The application was contested by the appellants, but on final hearing the modification was made.

The appellants contend that the court was without authority to make the modification in question, and further that the original decree was right on the merits of the case. It is said that no authority for such modification can be found in sections 243, 244, or 4091 of the Code. That these sections furnish no authority for modifying the decree on the application and showing made, may be conceded for the purposes of this case. But, notwithstanding this, we think the appellants cannot now justly complain of the order. The application was in writing with full notice to them, and it was heard and disposed of on its merits without any question as to the sufficiency of the application itself or the time within which it was made. It is the policy of the law to give trial courts ample opportunity to correct errors of law or fact; and, while such corrections can only be made in accordance with the law, where ...