
    Jordan v. Smith et al.
    
    Mortgages effect of judgment on note. A judgment upon a note against'both-principal and surety therein will not operate to discharge a mortgage given to secure the note by the principal.
    
      Appeal from Keokuk Circuit Court.
    
    Friday, January 27.
    -On the -23d day of January, 1869, J. Gr: Smith, principal, and N. J..Porter, surety, executed their note to W. A. Jordan for-$1,470.60, due March fi, 1869, and on the same day J. Gr. Smith and wife executed a mortgage on certain real estate to secure the payment of said note; this mortgage was duly recorded February 8, 1869. On the 17th May, 1869, J. G. Smith and wife sold and conveyed the said real estate to the defendant George W. Lemons, which conveyance was recorded June 21, 1869. At the June term, 1869, Jordan recovered judgment on the note against both makers. On the 3d day of January, 1870, Lemons sold and conveyed the said real estate to the defendant John D. Smith, and the conveyance was recorded January 10, 1870.
    On the 6th day of January, 1870, this action was brought against James G. Smith, Christina Smith, his wife, and George W. Lemons as defendants, asking judgment on the note and a foreclosure of the mortgage. John D. Smith was afterward made defendant on his own motion. The defendants claim that John D. Smith holds the legal title discharged of the mortgage lien, by reason of the judgment on the note against both principal and surety. The circuit court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a foreclosure of his mortgage as against all the defendants, and so adjudged. The defendants appeal.
    
      O. JT. Mackey for the appellant.
    
      George D. WoodAm, for the appellee.
   Cole, Ch. J.

Only one question- is made for our determination in this appeal, and that is, whether a judgment upon a note against both the principal and surety therein operates to discharge the lien of a mortgage given to secure the payment of the note? We have no difficulty in answering this question in the negative. It was substantially so ruled in the case of The State, for the use, etc., v. Lake et al., 17 Iowa, 215 (i. e., 219), where it is said, the mortgage lien remains until the debt is satisfied, and is not affected by a change of the note, or giving a different instrument evidencing the debt, or by a judgment merging the original evidence of indebtedness.” See the authorities there cited; the fact that one of the makers was a surety does not affect the rule. The same doctrine was held in Wahl v. Phillips, 12 Iowa, 81. Of course the satisfaction of the judgment in the foreclosure case will operate as a satisfaction of the judgment against the makers of the note, and e eonmerso / and the plaintiff may be required by motion, or other summary method, to so enter satisfaction. No question of costs is made in this case.

Affirmed.  