131 Iowa 226 | Iowa | 1906
At the time of the service of the writ of replevin the threshing outfit in controversy was in possession
The county in which the property was located was reasonably to be inferred from the mortgage; for, after describing the mortgagors as of Crawford county, foreclosure is author
Nor was there anything therein to advise a creditor of Kuhnes of its location or in whose possession it might be found.' These have been the controlling circumstances in many cases. Thus in Brock v. Barr, 70 Iowa, 399, a somewhat indefinite description was aided by adding that the property was in the possession of the mortgagor in a particular county. In Shellhammer v. Jones, 87 Iowa, 520, it was said the mortgagor was of the county .from which the property was not to be removed, and he certified that he was the owner, lie had no other stallions of like description. Preston v. Caul, 109 Iowa, 443, was much like the last case, in that the instrument indicated the mortgagor’s ownership of the' interest covered and that the stallion was in the county. In the case at bar the description is indefinite. True there were but two other outfits in the county and these were of different number and style. But the number was not inserted in the
This was too indefinite to meet this requirement, and the trial court’s ruling to this effect is approved.— Affirmed.