9 Iowa 303 | Iowa | 1859
Replevin for personal property. The plaintiffs make title under a bill of sale and conveyance from Zachariah Emmish, regularly acknowledged, certified and recorded. The defendant was a constable, and claimed the property by virtue of a levy and seizure under a writ of attachment issued by Ellis Parker, a justice of the peace of Hardin county, at the suit of Gf. M. Woodbury, against Z. Emmish & Brothers. He avers in his answer that he took the property from the possession and control of Z. Emmish & Bros, as their property, and denies that the plaintiffs owned the same, or any part thereof. Replication and issue joined.
The plaintiffs gave in evidence, the bill of sale from Z. Emmish, and a power of attorney from themselves to Emmish, to sell and dispose of the property. This being all the evidence, they asked the court to instruct the jury that, “ if the bill of sale was executed, acknowledged, and recorded
At tbe request of tbe defendant tbe court instructed tbe jury: “ That a bill of sale of personal property under which tbe actual possession is not taken by tbe purchaser, but is retained by the seller, will not pass tbe property of tbe seller so as to cut off attaching creditors, though acknowledged and recorded, unless the instrument provides for tbe property remaining in tbe possession of the seller. There being no such provision in this case, tbe plaintiffs were entitled to the possession of tbe goods, and tbe recording of tbe bill of sale is not such notice of their ownership, if found in tbe possession of Emmish, as will cut off tbe rights of attachment or judgment creditors. If tbe jury are satisfied from tbe evidence that no other notice than that contained in tbe record was given to defendant, they will find for defendant.”
“A bill of sale of personal property executed and recorded which does not provide that the property shall remain in the possession of tbe grantor, is not notice that tbe property, after that time found in bis possession, is not bis property; but be is presumed to be tbe owner of all personal property in bis possession.”
Under these instructions tbe jury found a verdict for tbe defendant, and a judgment was rendered in bis favor for a return of tbe property replevied.
Tbe instructions asked by tbe plaintiffs should have been given. Tbe goods were bound only from the service of tbe
Judgment reversed.