30 Iowa 433 | Iowa | 1870
II. The question for our consideration in this case is, whether the facts stated in the answer of defendants, and confessed by the demurrer, entitle them to a decree in their favor.
As the record stands, and for the purposes of the demurrer, it must be taken as true that by the judgment and decree of the district court of the United States for the district of Iowa, the question of title to the land in controversy in this case has been determined as between the parties to the former action and their privies. The answer shows that the plaintiffs in this action were defendants in the former one, and that the defendants here are the grantees of the plaintiffs in the cause in the federal court. Such being the facts and the court being one of competent jurisdiction, the decree is, as a plea, a bar between-the parties to this action. Whittaker v. Johnson County, 12 Iowa, 595; and cases cited in the opinion of Wright, J".
It is also shown by the averments of the answer that Charles F. Harrow bought and paid for the land in dispute ; that to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors, and
These facts, if true, constitute a good defense in equity to the plaintiffs’ action.
The demurrer confesses them to be true, and on appeal we must so regard them.
Glenn et al. v. Malony, 4 Iowa, 314, 320. See, also, Dygert v. Pletts, 25 Wend. 402; Lamb v. Buchmiller, 17 N. Y. 620.
The decree of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.