
    Luney et al. v. Mead.
    1. Mortgage: of land held under contract : assignment of contract : rights of parties. Where one who had improved and had possession of land worth $2,000, under a contract for a deed when he should pay the balance of the purchase-money, mortgaged the same to defendant for $1,000, and afterwards, for the consideration of $600, assigned his contract to plaintiffs, who, as part of said $600, paid the balance due upon the contract, and procured a deed to the land, and it ap' peared by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs had notice and assumed the payment of defendant’s mortgage, held, that plaintiffs’ petition to quiet the title in them as against defendant’s mortgage was properly dismissed, and that, upon defendant’s crossrpetition, judgment was properly rendered against the maker of the mortgage, and a decree of foreclosure entered; and that a personal judgment might well have been entered against plaintiff for the mortgage debt, on his agreement to pay the same.
    
      Appeal from Sac District Court.
    
    Thursday, March 22.
    On the.17th of July, 1875, one John Coates purchased' 160 acres of land of the Iowa Railroad'Land Company. The purchase price of the land was $1,056. He made a cash payment of $211.20, and contracted to pay the balance of the purchase-money and interest thereon in installments; and entered into four written agreements (one for each forty acres of the land) with the Land Company, providing that upon full payment of the purchase-money the land should be conveyed to him. He erected a dwelling house upon the premises, broke and put in cultivation about forty acres of land, and made other improvements. In August, 1879, he executed to the defendant, Rachel Mead, a mortgage upon the land to secure $1,000 and interest thereon, which mortgage was filed for record and recorded. On the 23d day of February, 1881, Coates assigned the land contracts to the plaintiffs for the sum of $400. There was then about $200 of the purchase-money remaining due and unpaid. The plaintiffs, paid this amount to the company and received a deed for the land.
    
      This action was commenced to cancel the mortgage given by Coates to Rachel Mead, and to quiet the plaintiffs’ title to the land. The defendant, by a cross-petition, set up the mortgage and made Coates a party to the action, and demanded a decree of foreclosure. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ petition, and rendered a judgment against Coates for the amount due on the mortgage, and entered a decree of foreclosure as prayed. The plaintiffs appeal.
    ' Ohas. D. Goldsmith, for apjiellants.
    
      JEdson c& Tait, and Robinson <& JMJilohrist, for appellee.
   Rothrock, J.

It appears from the evidence that, at the time Coates assigned the contracts to the plaintiffs, the land was worth at least $2,000. The plaintiffs paid to Coates $400, and to the Land Company $200. If their theory of the case be correct, the land was worth $1,400 more than they paid for it. But it is claimed by the defendant that the plaintiffs, as part of the consideration for the assignment of the contracts, agreed to pay the mortgage. The plaintiffs deny that they made any such agreement, and deny that they had any notice of the mortgage, and they claim that Coates had no interest in the property which he could mortgage. Without determining whether a recorded mortgage upon an equity in real estate is valid as against a subsequent purchaser of the equity without actual notice, we are clearly of the opinion that, in this case, there is a fair preponderance of evidence that the plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the mortgage and agreed to assume its payment; and the court might well have rendered a personal judgment against them upon their contract with Coates. See Scott's Adms. v. Gill, 19 Iowa, 187, and authorities there cited.

The appellee has caused the supersedeas bond given in the court below to be certified to this court, and asks that judgment be rendered on the same in this court. It will be so ordered.

Affirmed.  