69 Iowa 412 | Iowa | 1886
I. The undisputed facts of the case, as disclosed by the record, are as follows: (1) Uriah Foster, being the owner of the real estate in controversy, in 1877 executed to the plaintiff the mortgage sought to be foreclosed against defendant in this action. (2) In May, 1878, Uriah Foster conveyed the property to S. S. Foster, who, by a clause in the deed, assumed to pay the incumbrances thereon. (3) In •September of the same year defendant recovered a judgment against Uriah Foster, which remains unsatisfied. (4) In August, 1879, S. S. Foster reconveyed the real estate to Uriah Foster. (5) In the same month Uriah Foster conveyed the property to plaintiff, the deed declaring that the consideration therefor was the satisfaction of the mortgage. (6) In July, 1879, plaintiff commenced an action against Uriah Foster to foreclose the mortgage, which was dismissed in November of the same year upon motion of plaintiff; the record being in this language: “Now, on this day, on motion of J. 0. Powers and Paul Guelich, attorneys for plaintiff, it is ordered by the court that this cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, at the cost of plaintiff, having been settled.” (7) The mortgage has not been satisfied upon the record, and it was not the purpose of plaintiff to acquire the property subject to other liens. At the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff it was worth about the amount due on the mortgage. It was clearly the purpose of the
Y. The decree of the district court authorizes defendant to redeem from the mortgage, and settles the amount to be paid thereon. No question is raised as to the correctness of the decree in this regard. We are therefore not required to review this part of the case. We have considered all questions demanding discussion, reaching the conclusion that the decree of the district court ought to be
Affiemed.