Citation Numbers: 65 Iowa 386
Judges: Rothrock
Filed Date: 12/11/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
It appears that said eighty acres of land, together with two or three hundred acres of other lands, had been previously encumbered by mortgages. These mortgages were foreclosed, and the land sold, and on the eighth of June, 1874, the period of redemption was about to expire. As we understand the record, these prior mortgages had been executed by said Mickley, who formerly owned the land. It required $4,200 to redeem from these prior foreclosures. On the eighth day of1 June, 1874, Mickley, Hoster, and the defendants Mores, met at Waverly, and an arrangement was effected by which all the land was redeemed from the prior liens. The redemption was made in the name of Mickley, with money furnished by Hoster, and Mickley immediately conveyed all of the land to Hoster. Hoster was then the holder and owner of the Wicks note, or that part of it which had not been paid by the foreclosure of the mortgage to secure it. On the
“Waybelt, Iowa, June 3, 1884.
“ Received from W. TI. Mores and A. S. Mores one dollar, in full of all demands, of every nature whatsoever, against W. H. and A. S. Mores in and to the following described premises, to-wit: [Here follows a particular description of the eighty acres of land included in the Wicks mortgage.]
[Signed] “ John Gr. TIoster.”
It is claimed by the defendants that this receipt was intended to be a full release of ail their liability upon the note in question. This the plaintiff denies, and claims that the plaintiff did not then know that the defendants were liable upon an assumption of the mortgage debt. The circuit court held that the receipt, in connection with the oral evidence in the case, showed that the claim was then fully settled. The catee turns upon this question of fact, and we are required to determine whether the j udgment of the circuit court finds support in the evidence. And it must be understood that we are required to apply the same rule to the judgment that we do to the verdict of a jury. Upon the direct question as to whether it was actually stipulated between the parties that the defendants’ obligation was then and there canceled, the evidence is in conflict. We do not propose to set it out or review it. We must not be expected to do more than announce our conclusion.
It is ui’ged that the release, if one was made, was without consideration. The court was warranted in finding from the evidence that the defendants loaned $1,500 to TIoster to make up the amount necessary to redeem, and that it was agreed between the parties that, in consideration of this loan, the defendants were released from their obligation. It is true, this appears to be but a meager consideration; but there are other circumstances to be taken into account. It is probable that Mickley was the only party entitled to redeem. The
The judgment of the circuit court will be
Affirmed..