Case Name: Smith v. Bond et al. and Bond v. Epley et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1878-06-10
Citations: 48 Iowa 608
Docket Number: 
Parties: Smith v. Bond et al. and Bond v. Epley et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Smith v. Bond et al. and Bond v. Epley et al.
Appeal from Linn District Cotirt.
Monday, June 10.
These cases grow out of the preceding case of Bond v. Epley. The first of the above cases is a proceeding for an injunction to restrain Bond from enforcing his judgment, recovered in the former case, against certain property attached in that case. The plaintiff alleges that he purchased the property from Epley, and that the judgment is no lien thereon. He-also refers to the facts alleged in' the petition to vacate the judgment in case of Bond v. Epley, and alleges that the judgment includes illegal interest. A temporary injunction was granted as prayed. The second of the above causes is an action by Bond to set aside a conveyance by Epley to Smith,, of the real estate attached in the main action of Bond v. Epley. The petition alleges that the conveyance i-s fraudulent.
The defendant denies the fraudulent conveyance, and alleges that the judgment in the main action of Bond v. Epley was fraudulently recovered, without jurisdiction, and bears illegal interest. The causes were consolidated, and were referred, to-be considered in connection with the main case of Bond v. Epley. The referee found as matter of law that the petition of Norman E. Smith v. Bond et al. should be dismissed, and the temporary injunction dissolved. The referee further found that the deed from Epley to Smith was fraudulent, and should be set aside. Decree was entered in accordance with the recommendation of the referee. In the first case the-plaintiff appeals. In the second case the defendants appeal.
R. TI. Gilmore, for appellants.
Htibbard, Clark & Deacon, for appellees.

Opinion:
Day, J.
None of tile evidence respecting the conveyance from Epley to Smith is contained in the record. The cases are submitted solely upon the questions presented as to the validity of the principal judgment recovered in the main case of Bond v. Epley. The holding in that case that the judgment was rendered upon sufficient notice, and appearance by attorney, disposes of all the questions involved in these cases. The judgment in that case was corrected as to the illegal interest, and hence there is no ground for the continuance of the injunction in Smith v. Bond et al.
The judgment in each case is
Affirmed.