
    M. Kinports, Appellee, v. C. M. Oberiioltzer, Appellant.
    Setting aside satisfaction by attachment . sale. Where satisfaction of a judgment in attachment was entered on payment from the proceeds of a sale of the attached goods, and thereafter the holder of a chattel mortgage on such goods, executed by defendant, recovered judgment against the sheriff for the value thereof,- which was paid, an application to set aside such satisfaction was properly denied.
    
      Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. — Hon. W. R. Green, Judge.
    Wednesday, May 23, 1900.
    Application to set aside the satisfaction of a judgment against the defendant. The application was granted. Both parties appeal.
    
      —Affirmed.
    
    
      'Wright & Baldwin and Organ £ Ashwith for appellant.
    
      Fliclcinger Bros, and John J. Hess for appellee.
   Siierwin, J.

In January, 1892, the plaintiff sued out an attachment against the property of the defendant, and caused the same to be levied upon a stock of cigars, tobacco, and smokers' articles. January 27, 1892, this stock was sold as perishable property, for the sum of one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one' dollars. March 3, 1892, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendant for the sum of one thousand six hundred and eighty-four dollars and eight cents. On the fourth day of March, 1899, the sheriff, under the order of the court, paid to the clerk of the court the amount due on the plaintiff’s judgment, from the proceeds of the sale of the attached property, and there was paid over to plaintiff’s attorney the full amount of the judgment and prepaid costs. At the time of the lefy of the* attachment, and at the time of the sale thereunder, the plaintiff’s father held a chattel mortgage covering the stock sold. In August, 1892, he brought suit against the sheriff for the value thereof, and in March, 1893, recovered a judgment for the full amount. Two appeals were taken to this court in that case, the last of which was disposed of in January, 1897, and the judgment against the sheriff was thereupon paid. This application is to set aside the satisfaction of the judgment entered when the proceeds of the attachment sale were applied to its payment, and is based upon the ground that the value of the attached goods was recovered back by the defendant’s mortgagee, and that plaintiff’s judgment is in fact still unpaid. No one claims differently, but the defendant interposes numerous technical objections to the granting of the application. We see no merit in his various objections, and think the district court rightly set aside the satisfaction of the judgment. The order is appikmed.  