Alexander v. Staley
| Decision Date | 08 February 1900 |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 803,110 Iowa 607 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER v. STALEY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Hamilton county; D. R. Hindman, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for breach of the covenants of warranty in a deed. Defendant admits the execution of the deed to plaintiff, but says it was done to enable him (plaintiff) to collect a claim against one Hoon, who was the beneficial owner of the land; that he (defendant) received no consideration for the deed; and that plaintiff failed to comply with, and abandoned, his contract of purchase. Some other issues were tendered that will be referred to in the body of the opinion. The case was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and both parties appeal. As plaintiff first perfected his appeal, he will be called the appellant. Reversed.J. L. Kamrar and Wesley Martin, for appellant.
Hyatt & Hyatt, for appellee.
March 27, 1895, defendant, Staley, and his wife entered into a contract with plaintiff, whereby, for the consideration of $3,450, they agreed to convey a certain tract of land in Hamilton county, the legal title to which was apparently in the name of Staley. The contract recites the payment of $400 of the purchase price, and plaintiff was to pay the remainder by assuming an $1,800 incumbrance on the land, and by paying not to exceed the sum of $500 on a note on which defendant was bound to the State Bank of Ellsworth,--$375 September 1, 1895, and $375 April 1, 1896. The contract further provides that defendant should pay all the incumbrances on the land save the $1,800 mortgage, and that deed should be made on March 28, 1895. Pursuant to the contract, defendant delivered to plaintiff a warranty deed to the land, covenanting against all incumbrances save the $1,800 mortgage. The $400 that defendant acknowledged the receipt of consisted of a certificate of deposit for the sum of $53.81, issued by a private bank owned by plaintiff, which was delivered to defendant, and certain notes, amounting to the sum of $346.19, upon one Hoon, who, it appears, was the beneficial owner of the land. Two of these notes were for $100 each, and one was for $60, and it is claimed that these notes were secured by mechanics' liens upon the property conveyed. Another note was for $78. Plaintiff paid no more of the consideration expressed in the contract and deed, for the reason that shortly after he took the conveyance, and when about to take possession of the land, Hoon, who was in possession when plaintiff purchased, commenced an action of forcible entry and detainer against the plaintiff, claiming that he was the owner of the land. Thereupon plaintiff sued out a writ of injunction against Hoon, and in the action in which the writ was secured it was afterwards determined that the conveyance under which defendant held title was intended as security, and was in fact a mortgage, and that Hoon, in fact, was the owner of the land. Thereupon plaintiff brought this action to recover back the amount paid by him under his contract of purchase, attorney's fees paid for conducting his injunction suit against Hoon, and the costs paid by him in the forcible entry and detainer case, which, it appears, was finally decided against him. Some other matters were claimed in the petition, but, as plaintiff places no reliance thereon, they need not be considered. Defendant brought the certificate of deposit into court, and tendered it to plaintiff, and he also pleaded in answer that Hoon's notes are, and always have been, the property of plaintiff, and denied some of the other allegations of the petition. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $60.70, which was evidently the amount of the certificate of deposit, with interest to the date of trial, and disallowed all other claims. On the trial, it was shown that, before the trial of the injunction suit, plaintiff procured the Hoon notes from the defendant, and that they have never been returned. The purpose and object plaintiff had in obtaining the notes is a matter in dispute.
Error is assigned on the overruling of an objection to a question propounded by defendant's counsel to plaintiff on his cross-examination, as follows: “Now, why didn't you, when you subpœnaed Mr. Staley, notify him to produce these notes, instead of going and getting them yourself?” Plaintiff claimed that he obtained these Hoon notes from defendant for the purpose of being used in evidence on the trial of his injunction suit, while defendant contended that he took them back to save himself from loss. In view of this dispute, it is evident that there was no error in permitting counsel to propound the foregoing question on cross-examination of the witness.
By several assignments of error, plaintiff questions rulings of the trial court in admitting evidence offered by defendant as to the value of the Hoon notes. Even if it be conceded that there was error in these rulings, it was without prejudice, for the reason that the court instructed that, if defendant accepted the notes and the certificate of deposit at the agreed amount of $400, the jury should find that plaintiff paid $400 of the purchase price, unless defendant had been deprived of the use and ownership of the same by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial