Court Opinion

ID: 6659674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:00:45.73467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:07.061657
License: Public Domain

Barnes, J.,
dissenting.
My understanding of the answer of the' defendant, Mary Gehling, and the conclusions to be drawn from its allegations differ from those expressed by the majority. I am of opinion that the answer fails to state facts sufficient to entitle the defendant to any relief by way of subrogation. It appears that the intervener, John W. Buck-minster, allowed the land in question to be sold at the plaintiff’s execution sale without protest or objection, and at that time made no homestead claim to the same. By the allegations of his petition he has not shown that he has any such interest in the controversy between, the plaintiff and the defendant, Mary Gehling, as would give him the right to be made a party by intervention. Therefore the order of the district court striking his petition of intervention from the files was right.
As I view the pleadings, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.