Case Name: Gallaher v. Pendleton et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1880-12-11
Citations: 55 Iowa 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gallaher v. Pendleton et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Gallaher v. Pendleton et al.
1. Judgments: when mutual: assignment. The assignment to a third person of one of two mutual judgments existing between parties destroys their mutuality and tabes them out of the provisions of section 3097 of the Code.
Appeal from Woodbury Circuit Court
Saturday, December 11.
Submission without action, upon agreed facts. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against one Robinson, and afterward Robinson obtained a judgment against the plaintiff. Robin son, for a valuable consideration, assigned Ms judgment to tbe defendants, wbo bad no notice of tbe plaintiff’s judgment against Robinson. An execution was issued upon each judgment and put into tbe bands of tbe sheriff. Tbe plaintiff claims tbe right to have tbe one judgment set off against tbe other. Tbe defendants deny this right. Judgment was rendered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals;
JE. H. Hubbard, for appellant.
Isaac Pendleton, for appellees.

Opinion:
Adams, Ch. J.
— Mutual judgments, the executions on which are in tbe hands of the same officer, may be set off the one against tbe other. Code, section 3097. These judgments were originally mutual, and are so now unless they ceased to be mutual by reason
of tbe assignment of Robinson's judgment to tbe defendants. Tbe question presented arose in Bell v. Perry et al., 43 Iowa, 368. It was there held, in substance, that tbe assignment of one of tbe judgments destroyed tbe mutuality and took tbe judgments out of tbe provision of tbe Code above cited.
"Whether, in case tbe defendants had brought an action upon tbe judgment assigned to them by Robinson, this plaintiff could have set up bis judgment against Robinson by way of counter-claim is a different question, and is not, we think, presented in this record.
In our opinion tbe judgment of tbe Circuit Court must be
Affirmed