
    Loomis v. Hudson et al.
    
    1. Mortgage: revivor: cases followed. The cases of Welton v. Tmard, .15 Iowa, Varmice v. Bergen, 16 Id., 555, as to the revivor of a mortgage fraudulently canceled, approved and followed.
    
      Appeal from, Clinton District Court.
    
    Wednesday, April 19.
    Hudson made his mortgage to plaintiff on certain real estate, in August, 1857. In this mortgage there was a mistake as to one tract of land. Hudson afterwards sold the land to one Bedford, who was to pay plaintiff’s mortgage— the deed to Bedford giving the correct description of the several tracts. To correct this mistake, plaintiff took a new mortgage from Bedford, and canceled the old one; Bedford representing the property to be free from all incumbrances. Plaintiff had no knowledge to the contrary, and acted in good faitb upon the'truth of the representations thus made. Before the execution of the second mortgage, the defendant Corning obtained a judgment against Bed-ford, which was a lien upon this land. The petition sets forth these facts, and asks to revive the original mortgage, and to correct and foreclose the same. Corning demurred ; the demurrer was overruled; and from this ruling he appeals.
    
      Corning & Wheeler for the appellant.
    
      A. R. Cotton for the appellee.
   Wright, Ch. J.

There is no difference in the principle involved between this case and Welton v. Tizzard (15 Iowa, 495), and Vannice v. Bergen (16 Id., 555).

'These rulings we believe to correctly reflect the law, and following them the judgment below is

Affirmed.  