Case Name: Gordon et al. v. Hardin
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1871-03-27
Citations: 33 Iowa 550
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gordon et al. v. Hardin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 550–553

Head Matter:
Gordon et al. v. Hardin.
Mortgage ¡ personae property : interest oe mort&agor. A mortgagor oí personal property .has no interest therein which can he levied on and sold under execution.
Appeal from Poweshiek District Court.
Wednesday, March 27.
Replevin for two horses and a set of double harness. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and the following facts found. February 20, 18Y0, plaintiff, Gordon, purchased the property in controversy and certain other property, and gave therefor his promissory notes with Clark, the intervenor, as security. On the 25th of the same month, Gordon, for the purpose of securing Clark, on account of said notes, executed to him a mortgage upon the property in dispute, conditioned to be void upon the payment of the debt for which Clark was security. The mortgage stipulates that, in default of the payment of either of the notes, or in case of Gordon’s attempting to dispose of, or remove the property or any part of it, out of the county, or if Clark should, at any time, deem it for his greater safety, then he should have the right to take immediate possession of the property mortgaged wherever found, the mortgage -itself being his authority therefor, and he should have the right to sell it at public auction to satisfy the amounts due upon the notes. Tbe mortgage was given in good faith and duly-filed for record. On the 18th day of May, 1870, after the mortgage was recorded, the defendant levied an execution, issiied upon a judgment against Gordon, upon the property which was then in Gordon’s possession. On the 23d day of May, 1870, Gordon instituted this suit. Clark, by his petition as intervenor, claims the property; but it does not --appear when his petition was filed. The court adjudged that the intervenor was entitled to the possession of the property, and judgment, with costs, was rendered accordingly against defendant;-who now appeals to this eourt.
Robinson & Patterson, and M. Phelps for the appellant.
Pruyn & Haines for the appellee.

Opinion:
Beck, Ch. J.
The defendant claims to hold the property upon an execution issued on a judgment against Gordon, who had owned the chattels and executed a mortgage thereon. Under the mortgage, Clark held the title-and right of possession of the property. His claim as intervenor is based thereon. As against Gordon, his right is clear and cannot be disputed. Did defendant acquire, under the levy, the right to the possession of the chattels ? This court has held that a mortgagor of personal property has no interest thefein which can be levied-upon and sold under execution. Campbell v. Leonard, 11 Iowa, 489. Gordon having no interest in the property that could have been taken upon the execution, the levy made by defendant did not defeat, the title of Clark and his- right of possession. As against defendant, also, Clark is entitled to the property. The judgment of the district court must be
Affirmed.