Conover v. Earl

1. Tenancy in common: os a chose in action: trover. Tlie owner of a promissory note may sell distinct shares thereof to different persons, who thus become co-owners. The interest thus acquired by one co-owner is such as to enable him to protect it by an action; and he may maintain trover if another co-owner he guilty of conversion. 2.-or chattels : conversion. One part owner of a chattel is as mueli entitled to the possession thereof as the other, and the refusal of one to deliver possession of the chattel to the other, does not amount to a conversion. Following Franz v. Young, 24 Iowa, 375. 8. -remedy. It seems that a co-owner of a promissory note might maintain an action for partition, or in equity, making the other part owners and'the debtor parties.

Appeal from, Allamaltee District Court. Personalty : tenants in common : conversion, etc.— Tbis is an action iu the nature of trover by one joint tenant in personal property against a co-tenant. One Sackett was the owner of a promissory note, secured -by mortgage, made by one W. C. Earl (son of the defendant) and one Augustine Hersey. Being the owner of this note, Sackett' sold and assigned by piecemeal (so the petition alleges), to four persons, distinct portions thereof. One McCoy became possessed of one of these shares, and his right was afterward assigned to the plaintiffs in this action. It is alleged in the petition that the defendant became the purchaser of one of the shares in the note and mortgage, and “ obtained possession of the same, and converted the said note to his own use, and canceled, destroyed and surrendered to the maker the said mortgage, and released the same, to the damage,” etc. Answer, first, in denial; second, alleging that the defendant did not surrender the note to the makers, or either of them, or cancel the mortgage, but still holds the s,ame for benefit of the different owners thereof. On the trial “ the court found the following facts to be established by the testimony: first, that the said plaintiffs are the owners of an interest in the note in question, as alleged in their petition; second, that, being such owners, the plaintiffs, through their attorney, demanded of the defendant, the note in question, which defendant refused to deliver to the plaintiffs; third, that, prior to such demand, the said note had come into possession of defendant ; fourth, that, at the time said note came into defendant’s possession, and at the time said demand was made, the defendant was the owner of an interest or share in said note, which was then and still is unpaid; fifth, that said note has not been delivered up by the defendant to the makers thereof; sixth, that said defendant, at the time plaintiffs demanded said note, stated falsely, that he had given up the note to the maker, W. C. Earl, and that the mortgage given to secure the same had been canceled.” Thereupon the court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs for the sum of $160.61, the amount of plaintiffs’ alleged interest in said note, and costs of suit taxed at $6.75. To which decision and judgment, the defendant, by Ms counsel, then and there excepted. Defendant appeals.