Abrams v. Sinn
| Decision Date | 04 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 34133 |
| Citation | 187 N.W. 491,193 Iowa 528 |
| Parties | J. C. ABRAMS, Appellant, v. E. A. SINN et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Story District Court.--E. M. McCALL, Judge.
ACTION in equity, to rescind contract for sale of land. Crosspetition for specific performance. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.--Modified and affirmed.
Affirmed.
C. G Lee, for appellant.
J. Y Luke, for appellees.
I.
On July 10, 1919, the plaintiff and wife entered into a written contract with the defendant E. A. Sinn, by the terms of which plaintiff undertook to sell to said defendant a certain farm in Story County, Iowa, for the sum of $ 53,600, to be paid as follows: $ 1,500 on the execution of the writing, $ 25,100 on March 1, 1920, and the further sum of $ 27,000 in 10 years from March 1, 1920, with annual interest at 5 per cent, secured by mortgage on the property. Conveyance was to be made March 1. 1920. Later, on July 19, 1920, plaintiff, claiming to have been defrauded in the transaction, served written notice of rescission of sale upon Sinn, and tendered to him a return of the check given him for the down payment of $ 1,500. Thereafter, on August 4, 1919, plaintiff instituted this action to rescind and cancel the contract, naming as defendant the said E. A. Sinn, together with S. B. Lee, Ollie Briley, and John Hill. Stated as briefly as practicable, the alleged ground for such relief is that, in said deal, the defendant Lee undertook to act as the plaintiff's agent, and to protect and care for the plaintiff's interests therein, and plaintiff relied upon him for that purpose; but that said Lee, in violation of his duty to plaintiff, was in fact acting in the interest of Sinn, and did by his misrepresentations and untrue statements deceive and mislead the plaintiff into selling the land for materially less than it was worth, and did aid and abet the defendant Sinn in obtaining an unconscionable advantage over the plaintiff. The petition also charges that Lee was, in fact, secretly interested as a principal or associate with Sinn in said purchase. The defendants Sinn and Briley answer, admitting the making of the contract sought to be rescinded, and deny all charges of fraud. By cross-petition, Sinn alleges that, on March 1, 1920, he was ready, able, and willing to complete the purchase of the land on the agreed terms, and has ever since been and still is ready to perform, on his part. He also alleges, as a ground for the recovery of damages, that, after making such purchase, he entered into contract with his codefendant Hill to sell the land to him at $ 390 per acre, but that, by reason of the action taken by plaintiff, he was compelled to release Hill from his agreement, and thereby lost the profit on such sale, amounting to $ 8,800. The defendant Lee does not answer.
After hearing the evidence offered, the trial court found for the defendants, and sustained the cross-action by Sinn for specific performance, and ordered that plaintiff and wife should, within 30 days, and upon a tender of performance by Sinn, convey the land to him by warranty deed. It was further ordered that plaintiff should transfer, assign, and deliver to Sinn the rental of the property for the year 1920, and that performance on the part of Sinn should consist of tendering to plaintiff his promissory note, due March 1, 1930, for $ 27,000, bearing 5 per cent interest, payable annually from date of tender, with optional payments of $ 1,000 or multiple thereof on any interest day, and also a first mortgage on the property, to secure such payment. Said Sinn was also required to tender in payment the sum of $ 25,100 in cash, together with the further sum of $ 1,500, if plaintiff should surrender the check given him for that sum. It was still further ordered and adjudged that, if plaintiffs neglect and refuse to make the conveyance of the land and assignment of the rental for the year 1920, as ordered in the decree, "there shall be entered at the next term of said court a judgment against plaintiffs for the difference between $ 335 per acre, for the land in controversy and the value of price of $ 400 per acre, or the aggregate sum of $ 10,400," in favor of the defendant Sinn. The foregoing decree was entered of record on August 19, 1920, and plaintiffs perfected an appeal therefrom on September 20, 1920. On the same day, the defendants filed a motion for judgment against plaintiff for the recovery of $ 10,400, pursuant to the provision embodied in the decree directing the same in the event of plaintiff's failure to perform the contract to convey the land. This motion was sustained and, the judgment demanded having been entered, plaintiffs have also appealed therefrom.
We have omitted to state that, after this action was begun, a supplemental petition was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant Lee, repeating the charges of fraud by said defendant and his alleged breach of faith toward the plaintiff, and asking that, in the event Sinn recovers judgment for damages upon his cross-petition, the plaintiffs should have their remedy over therefor against Lee. No issue was taken upon this pleading, and by order of the court in its entry of judgment, the matter was continued.
While there is much in the record justifying a suspicion that the defendants together organized a "drive" by which to "rush" the plaintiff and secure the purchase of his farm at a price which, in the piping times of the Iowa land boom of 1919, would insure them a handsome profit, there is lack of definiteness in the evidence of such fraud or undue advantage as would justify the court in ordering a rescission of the contract: and without extending our opinion for a discussion of the facts, we think it must be said that the trial court did not err in holding that specific performance might be enforced; although, had the appellee not waived such performance by electing to take judgment for damages, we should feel compelled to modify the terms thereof in several respects.
II. The effect of the decree as entered was to give the appellee the right to elect to take a judgment for damages for the difference between the contract price of the 160 acres of land at $ 335 per acre, and the value or price of such property at $ 400 per acre, in lieu...
To continue reading
Request your trial