Opinion
Not to be reported in State Reports.
F. A. Royal, of Royals&sRoyal, Des Moines, for all defendants who are or who may be nonresident aliens and for Poul Scheel, Royal Danish Consul, Chicago, Ill., as to the cross-petition of Arthur L. Nelson.
Jones, Cambridges&sCarl, Atlantic, for all other defendants and for the plaintiffs in Case No. 14952 as to the cross-petition of Arthur L. Nelson and for the plaintiffs in Case No. 14938.
Frank N. Rasmussen, Exira, and Daltons&sDalton, Atlantic, for Arthur L. Nelson, defendant and cross-petitioner, in both cases.
WENNERSTRUM, Justice.
The present appeal involves the same parties as those noted in Nelson v. Nelson, Iowa, 65 N.W.2d 154. An application for the appointment of a receiver for the personal and real property involved in the former appeal was made by the plaintiffs who were also defendants to a cross-petition in the two consolidated actions hereinafter mentioned. The trial court refused to make the appointment and the plaintiffs, and cross-defendants, have appealed.
Two actions which were consolidated for trial in the district court were involved in the prior appeal. We shall not set forth the facts commented upon in our prior opinion. It is sufficient to state that in the consolidated cases the trial court held Arthur L. Nelson, a tenant of land owned by John P. Anderson, deceased, had not established his claimed ownership of certain farm and personal property, under an alleged oral contract with the decedent. Upon appeal to this court we affirmed the trial court.
Decree in the trial court was entered on February 26, 1953. It was this decree which we affirmed in our prior opinion. The application for the appointment of a receiver was filed on March 18, 1953. It was thereafter submitted along with a resistence thereto and on July 20, 1953 the court entered an order denying the application. The plaintiffs and cross-defendants, as heretofore stated, have appealed from the denial of the order.
In our decision in the cited case we held the tenant had not established his claimed ownership in the personal and real estate involved. In the submission of the present appeal counsel for the appellant herein admitted that if our decision in the original case was adhered to the matter involved in the present appeal was moot. We have denied the petition for rehearing in the original case and consequently there is no necessity for a receiver. The appellants herein have nothing to gain by the appointment of a receiver.
In Rudolph v. Davis, 237 Iowa 1383, 1388, 25 N.W.2d 332, 335, we made a comment which is applicable to the present situation: '* * * But when, as in this case, the ownership of the property in litigation has been completely determined and no necessity exists for him to further hold it for the purpose of preservation, the adjudged owner is entitled to possession and there can be no legal or equitable reason for the receiver further to administer the receivership property, nor is there any reason in this case for the court to authorize further holding of the property in receivership.'
The title to the property involved in the prior appeal having been heretofore determined favorable to the contentions of the plaintiffs and cross-defendants in the former appeal we see no necessity for the appointment of a receiver. We therefore affirm the trial court.
Affirmed.
All Justices concur.