79 Iowa 574 | Iowa | 1890
The defendants are husband and wife, and were the parents of James H. Argo, deceased, who is the plaintiff’s intestate. The plaintiff, under the provisions. of the Code, section 2379, obtained an order .from the district court of Dallas county for the appearance of the defendants to answer, and, as a result of the examination, the district court found that William H. Argo held a note for one hundred and fifty dollars, and fifty dollars in money, which he wrongfully detained from the plaintiff as administrator of the estate of James Argo, deceased, under a claim that they belonged to the defendant Sarah Argo, and ordered them turned over immediately, or, at furthest, on demand of the administrator, and, on failure, that they be imprisoned until the order should be complied with. The question on appeal is as to the validity of, the order. The examination involved inquiries as to other property as to which the district court made no order, and our investigation may be limited to the order as to the note and money.
As the order of the court was based on the statements made by the defendants at the examination, and our action is to determine the validity of the order, it is necessary, to an understanding of our ruling, that the statements as to the notes and money should appear.
The following are Mrs. Argo’s answers under oath, at the examination, as to her ownership of the notes: “I did have a conversation with Will and my son’s cousin about the Potts notes, and James said that ‘ he wanted mother to have them for his care.’ He said I ‘ justly earned them, and more too.’ He gave direction that when the notes came back in the morning that Bill should ‘ sign them over to ma.’ That was Ms exact language, as far as I can remember. My husband has collected fifty dollars, and my husband has the one hundred and fifty-dollar note in his possession for me.” The plaintiff neither took nor offered testimony in the case, except the answers of the defendants. The defendants, however, examined several witnesses upon the point of Mrs. Argo’s ownership of the notes, but there is nothing to change the legal effect of Mrs. Argo’s statements as to her rights.
The points urged by appellants are that the court, in making its order, acted without authority of law, and that the effect of the order is to deprive the defendants of property without due process of law. The argument proceeds upon the theory that there was an
Now, let us take Mrs. Argo’s statements, and-look for any claim on her part to the property. She nowhere says it is her property, or that she has any claims to it, nor does she anywhere state facts from which a legal inference of ownership or claim can be drawn. She does speak of a gift, but she says, in effect, that it was unexecuted, and such a gift is not valid - as against an administrator or others. Willey v. Backus, 52 Iowa, 401. When James talked of having the notes signed over to her, they were not in existence, and were not while he lived. She says she had no claim against him, and the transaction could not have been a payment. On what state of facts, then, can or does she claim a right to the possession of the .property % She nowhere says, in any way, that she is entitled to the possession. The fact that she is contesting the order of the court is the only ground for inferring that she claims the possession. The order of the court seems to