Crosby v. Elkader Lodge No. 72

16 Iowa 399
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJune 16, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 16 Iowa 399 (Crosby v. Elkader Lodge No. 72) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crosby v. Elkader Lodge No. 72, 16 Iowa 399 (iowa 1864).

Opinion

Lowe, J.

The question involves no principle not heretofore settled by this Court.

First. It has been held that the equitable interest of the judgment debtor in real estate is vendible upon execution, and the judgment itself operates as a lien thereon. Harrison v. Kramer et al., 3 Iowa, 543; Blain v. Stuart, 2 Iowa, 378.

Second. If the debtor or his grantee redeem land which had been sold in part^satisfaction of a subsisting judgment, the property at once becomes liable to satisfy the unpaid balance of the execution from the moment of such redemption. This principle or rule of property is distinctly settled in the case of Curtis v. Millard & Co., 14 Iowa, 128, where the doetrine upon this subject is discussed, as well as by the several authorities therein cited.

Adopting and following the rule thus established, we must hold that the claim of Collins must give way to the prior and superior equities of the plaintiff. For, we remark, additionally, that Collins did not redeem as a jrpiiqr execution creditor, within nine months of the first sale, but as purchaser under Eolf, the debtor, at the end of the year, and for that reason occupies no better or different position from what Eolf would if he had redeemed, that is to say, he took the property subject to all liens and incumbrances that were or might be resting upon it.

The circumstances that he commenced his suit by attachment, and garnished Libby and Williamson, trustees of Elkader Lodge, No. 72, introduces no new element into the controversy, nor did it in the least alter the rights or shift the equities of the parties. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cadd v. Snell
259 N.W. 590 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1935)
Paulsen v. Jensen
228 N.W. 357 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)
Willey v. Hite
175 Iowa 657 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
McQueeney v. Toomey
92 P. 561 (Montana Supreme Court, 1907)
German Bank v. Iowa Iron Works
123 Iowa 516 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
People's Saving Bank v. McCarthy
93 N.W. 583 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Flanders v. Aumack
51 P. 447 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
Reynolds v. Fleming
45 N.W. 1099 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Taylor v. Branscombe
38 N.W. 400 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1888)
Peckenbaugh v. Cook
16 N.W. 530 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)
Burgett v. Paxton
99 Ill. 288 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
Clayton v. Ellis
50 Iowa 590 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1879)
Cauthorn v. Indianapolis & Vincennes R. R.
58 Ind. 14 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Iowa 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-elkader-lodge-no-72-iowa-1864.