Bishop v. Knowles

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROTHROCK, J.
• Citation: Bishop v. Knowles, 53 Iowa 268, 5 N.W. 139 (Iowa 1880)
• Decision Date: 07 April 1880
• Parties: BISHOP ET AL. v. KNOWLES ET AL

5 N.W. 139

53 Iowa 268

BISHOP ET AL. v. KNOWLES ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 7, 1880

Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court.

ACTION in equity to quiet title to part of a lot in the city of Burlington, and to cancel a sale thereof under a certain trust deed. There was a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained. Plaintiffs elected to stand upon the petition, and the court thereupon rendered a judgment against them for costs. Plaintiffs appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Thomas Hedge, Jr., for appellants.

Hall & Huston, for appellees.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

As the cause was disposed of upon demurrer, a statement of the averments of the petition is necessary to a fair understanding of the questions involved. It is unnecessary to set out the petition at length, and we will proceed to give a condensed and succinct statement of its substance, in doing which we find ourselves very much aided by the very clear and fair statement made by counsel for appellees.

Philemon Bishop was the owner of the real estate in controversy. He and his wife Martha occupied the same as a homestead. Without intending to abandon their homestead they moved to Memphis Tennessee, in June, 1859, intending to remain there temporarily, and then return to their said home.

P Bishop had previously executed a trust deed upon said property in favor of W. B. Chamberlain, as trustee, to secure a note of $ 400 to E. Chamberlain, in which trust deed Martha Bishop did not join, and which was, therefore, void.

Subsequently Martha Bishop was fraudulently induced by said E. Chamberlain and D. C. Redding (in whom she had great confidence) to join her husband in a trust deed to Robert Armstrong and E. Knowles, trustees, to secure a note of $ 100, to E. Chamberlain. The alleged fraud consisted in representations made to said Martha, that said trust deed was to secure the payment of $ 100 in one year from date, and that she was imposed upon and deceived because she was illiterate and unable at the time to read said deed of trust.

Having the right to lease their homestead she did so, and made arrangements with said Redding to collect the rents, and pay off the $ 100 trust deed and prevent the sale thereunder, and he agreed with her to do so. But said Redding and E. Chamberlain were conspiring to cheat and defraud her, and had secretly arranged to apply the rents on the $ 400 trust deed, in order that the property might be sold under the $ 100 trust deed.

Relying on the promises of Redding, she and her husband went to Memphis, where he died in 1862, leaving her destitute and in the enemy's lines during the war of the rebellion.

After she left Burlington, by the connivance of E. Chamberlain and Redding, the rents were collected of the tenant to whom the property was leased by Chamberlain, and applied on the $ 400 trust deed, and on the 26th day of October, 1859, the property was sold under the $ 100 trust deed to said E. Chamberlain, whose deed was at once recorded, and who with defendants has ever since been in actual possession of said property.

Neither P. Bishop nor the said Martha heard of these transactions, and they continued to reside at Memphis and remained there during the war, and until two years before this suit was brought, which was November 9, 1875. The said Martha wrote frequently to D. C. Redding and others at Burlington, but could get no information concerning the property until two years before the commencement of this suit.

The defendants are devisees of E. Chamberlain, who is now dead, and who had no other claim on said property than the $ 100 trust deed, which his fraudulent contrivance induced the said Martha to execute, and which Chamberlain fraudulently claimed to have purchased at the trust sale for the full amount of the debt secured by said $ 100 trust deed, when in truth and fact nearly the whole of said amount had been paid off in the rents of said property. The plaintiffs are the widow and heirs of P. Bishop, and some of them are still under age.

The defendant demurred upon two grounds: 1. There are no equities in the bill. 2. The claim to relief is barred by the statute of limitations.

It does not appear that the trust deed was other or different from what Martha Bishop supposed it to be...