Poole, Gilliam & Co. v. Carhart
This text of 71 Iowa 37 (Poole, Gilliam & Co. v. Carhart) 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.
Opinion
The answer of the garnishee, Carhart, showed that he had in his hands a fund amounting to $281.39, arising from the sale of certain grain and feed belonging to the plaintiff’s execution debtor, John Seney. The court rendered judgment for that amount in the plaintiffs’ favor. nemingAvay, the intervenor, claims the fund as havirigbelonged to-Charles Seney, and as having been assigned by Charles Seney to him. The fact is that John Seney mortgaged the grain to Carhart. Afterwards he and Oarhart caused it to be ground and sold, and Oarhart was allowed to retain the amount due him, and a balance of $281.39 ivas left in his hands. Hem[38]*38ingway claims that Charles Seney had a junior mortgage upon the same grain, and that, when the grain was converted into money, his mortgage rested upon the proceeds, subject only to Carhart’s claim, and that, after Oarhart’s claim was satisfied out of the proceeds, Charles Seney became the owner of the balance.
Several interesting questions have been presented in this case. One is as to whether Charles Seney’s mortgage was so drawn as to cover the grain in question. The court below thought it was not. Another question is as to whether, if Charles Seney’s mortgage did cover the grain in question, it covered the proceeds resulting from the sale of "the grain. The appellees contend that it did not, and rely upon Waters v. Cass Co. Bank, 65 Iowa, 234. Another question presented is as to whether the intervenor, who claims as assignee of Charles Seney, has proven the alleged assignment. The plaintiffs denied the assignment; and, if the intervenor has failed to prove it, he cannot be allowed to recover. For the purpose of proving the assignment, a paper was introduced, which is in the following words:
“ Pay to J.M. Hemingway cash now in your hands belonging to me, proceeds of fees, etc. Charles Senet.
“ To L. B. GarhartW
We think that the judgment must be
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
71 Iowa 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poole-gilliam-co-v-carhart-iowa-1887.