Stephenson v. Walden

24 Iowa 84
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedJanuary 29, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 Iowa 84 (Stephenson v. Walden) 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
Stephenson v. Walden, 24 Iowa 84 (iowa 1867).

Opinion

Cole, J.

The District Court found as facts, that Walden did assess Lincoln township for 1867,.and the county owed him for that service; that, on the 25th day of April, [86]*861867, he made out, swore to and filed with the clerk, his account therefor; that on the next day, April 26, 1867, Bradley & Campbell bought the account of Walden, and paid him full value therefor, and received from him an order in writing upon the clerk for the amount due him for his said services; that, before the levy of the attachment, Bradley & Campbell notified the clerk of their right to the warrant; that the writ of attachment in favor of plaintiff was levied upon the warrant on the 6th day of August, 1867, and that plaintiff had no notice of Bradley & Campbell’s claim to the warrant, until after the levy. The District Court, upon these facts, rendered judgment in favor of the intervenors, Bradley & Campbell. This judgment, upon the authority of Allison et al. v. Barrett (16 Iowa, 278), and Thomas v. Hillhouse (17 id. 67), must be affirmed. At the time of the levy of the writ of attachment, the defendant therein, Joseph Walden, was not the owner of the warrant, and, by the levy, the attaching creditor only acquired the interest of his debtor therein. Drake on Attachment, § 223. What would have been the effect, upon the rights of the parties,, of a sale under the attachment proceedings before any claim to, or notice by, Bradley & Campbell, of their interest in the warrant, we need not determine. They have been diligent in the assertion of their rights, and made their claim before the plaintiff had advanced any consideration or changed his position by reason of the seizure of the warrant under his attachment. Their rights accrued prior to the plaintiff’s and are paramount to his.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Board of Com'rs, Cleveland Co. v. Barr
1918 OK 291 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Ticer v. State Ex Rel. Holt
1912 OK 694 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Roesch v. W. B. Worthen Co.
130 S.W. 551 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Adoue & Lobit v. H. Seeligson & Co.
54 Tex. 593 (Texas Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 Iowa 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-walden-iowa-1867.