Case ID: f_98/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHIRAS, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re WOLF.
    (District Court, N. D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.
    December 11, 1899.)
    Bankruptcy — Landlord’s Libn — Waiver.
    Under the laws of Iowa, as construed by its courts, a landlord who takes from his tenant a. mortgage on the personalty used or kept on the demised premises, covering not only arrears of rent, but also other debts, such as for money loaned, for personal services, and the like, is deemed to have waived his statutory lien on such property for rent due, and he will not be entitled to enforce such a lien against the property in the hands of the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.
    In Bankruptcy. On review of decision of referee in bankruptcy.
    Deacon & Good, for trustee in bankruptcy.
    Charles W. Kepler, for claimant.
   SHIRAS, District Judge.

Under the provisions of the Code of Iowa, a landlord is entitled to a lien for rent due upon personal property used or kept on the leased premises. In construing these provisions of the Code, the state supreme court has repeatedly held that if the landlord takes a mortgage on the property as a security for rent and other indebtedness, and so mingles or confuses the several claims that, if payments be made, it would be impossible to determine whether the payments were properly applicable to the rent or not, such action is deemed to be a waiver of the statutory lien. Smith v. Dayton, 94 Iowa, 102, 62 N. W. 650; Ladner v. Balsley, 103 Iowa, 679, 72 N. W. 787. The finding of the referee shows that in this case a note for $800 was executed and secured by a mortgage; it being intended by the parties that this note should include all the indebtedness due from the bankrupt to the creditor, including rental, money loaned, services rendered, and the like. The facts bring Ílit» ease within the rule laid down by the supreme court of Iowa in the cases above cited, and the ruling of the referee that the claimant is not entitled to a landlord’s lien is affirmed.