Case Name: Garretson v. Ferrall et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1889-06-06
Citations: 78 Iowa 166
Docket Number: 
Parties: Garretson v. Ferrall et al.
Judges: Rotheook, J., concurs in this dissent.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 166–171

Head Matter:
Garretson v. Ferrall et al.
■Execution: indemnifying bond to mortgagee : assignment without assignment of mortgage debt. Where mortgage chattels are levied upon and sold after an indemnifying bond has been given to the mortgagee, and the mortgagee assigns his claim for damages under the bond, such assignment does not, without an assignment also of the mortgage debt, confer upon the assignee a right of action for damages under the bond. [Beck and Rothrock, JJ., dissenting.]
Appeal from Mahaska District Court. — Hon. W. R. Lewis, Judge.
Filed, June 6, 1889.
W. C. Garretson executed a chattel mortgage ou a stock of jewelry to O. S. Garretson. Subsequently the defendants Ferrall & Hawkins Bros, obtained a judgment against W. C. Garretson, and levied an execution issued thereon on the stock oí jewelry then in the hands of C. L. Garretson. Notice was given the sheriff of O. S. Garretson’s claim, and thereupon the defendants Ferrall & Hawkins Bros; gave the sheriff an indemnifying bond for eight hundred dollars for the benefit of 0. S. Garretson, or other claimants, signed by defendant George H. Baugh, whereupon the sheriff sold the goods, and the amount realized was applied on the judgment of Ferrall & Hawkins Bros. O. S. Garretson assigned his claim under this bond for damages to the plaintiff 0. L. Garretson who brings this suit. The defendants answered, alleging, among other things, .that “no part of the claimed debt of 0. W. and L. P. Garretson owing to O. S. Garretson was ever assigned to the plaintiff; and no credit given by 0. S. Garretson on the debt of L. P. and' 0. W. Garretson in consideration of the assignment to plaintiff; and that, no part of the debt being assigned, the assignment of the mortgage, and of the claims for damages raised out of the claim of trespass upon the mortgaged property, are void.” To this part of the answer the plaintiff demurred on the ground “ that the facts stated did not constitute a defense, in this.: That it is not necessary to the validity of an. assignment of the claim for the conversion of the notes or mortgaged property that the notes or mortgages should be assigned,” which demurrer was overruled, and plaintiff excepted. The case was submitted to a jury, and on the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence the defendants moved the court to instruct the jury to return a'verdict for the defendants, which motion was sustained, and a verdict for the defendants returned, to which the plaintiff excepted. The grounds for this motion were: First. There was no sufficient evidence as to the alleged bond and its conditions, and the breach thereof. Second. That there was no sufficient evidence of the alleged notice to the sheriff. Third. That there was no evidence of the assignment of any interest in said note and mortgage to the plaintiff. Fourth. That the evidence showed that no interest in said note and mortgage was assigned to the plaintiff. Fifth. That, on the tacts as shown, the defendants were entitled to a verdict in their favor.
W. 8. Clark, for plaintiff.
Bolton & McCoy, for defendants.

Opinion:
Given, C. J.
There is a controversy between counsel as to the correctness of the abstracts, but enough appears without question to show that the controlling point of difference is whether the plaintiff could maintain this action without an assignment to him of an interest in the note and mortgage of W. C. to O. S. Garretson. Whether the plaintiff waived his exception to the ruling on the demurrer by going to trial is immaterial for the presentation of this question, as it is evident from the testimony that the court sustained the motion ordering a verdict for defendants upon the third and fourth grounds assigned for the motion. There was evidence as' to the existence of the bond and its conditions, and of notice to the sheriff, upon which .the court would unquestionably have submitted the case to the jury. It has been so frequently held by this court as not to require citation that the mortgage is a mere incident to the debt; that the assignment of the debt carries the mortgage with it; and that the assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt is a nullity. Counsel for appellant are understood as resting their position upon the claim that, when 0. S. Garretson sold the claim in suit to C. L. Garret-son, the mortgage debt became thereby extinguished and paid to the value of the claim, whether O. S. Garretson obtained full value or not; that it is a mere matter of accounting between W. C. Garretson, mortgagor, and 0. S. Garretson, mortgagee; and, if the claim sold is sufficient to pay the debt, there was no debt or mortgage to assign; and, if not fully paid thereby, the mortgagee is the one to hold the balance of the debt and mortgage. Tliis position is not tenable. Had O. S. Garretson, the mortgagee, brought this suit, he would recover because he had the mortgage debt and its securities, and not because some other or different debt had accrued in his favor. The giving of the bond and taking the goods substituted the bond as the security instead of the goods, and the remedy for the mortgage debt and its security may be upon the bond. If, by assignment without the debt to C. L. Garretson, he would not have acquired any right of action as to the goods, he certainly acquires none upon the bond without the assignment of the debt. There was no error in the action of the court in overruling the demurrer, nor inordering a verdict for the defendants. Affirmed.