Brandt v. Schucha, No. 49624

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGARFIELD
Citation250 Iowa 679,96 N.W.2d 179
Decision Date08 April 1959
Docket NumberNo. 49624
PartiesLawrence A. BRANDT, Appellee, v. Hattie SCHUCHA, Administratrix of the Estate of Vannie M. Neitzel, Deceased, Ernest Stebbins, Hattie Schucha, Gladys Hainan, Earl McKnight, Myrtle Wells, Mable Wells, S. A. Tinker, L. H. McKnight, W. K. McKnight, Birdella M. Waltz, D. J. Tinker, Bessie D. McMillen, Wallace Jones, and Donald J. Estep, Appellants.

Page 179

96 N.W.2d 179
250 Iowa 679
Lawrence A. BRANDT, Appellee,
v.
Hattie SCHUCHA, Administratrix of the Estate of Vannie M. Neitzel, Deceased, Ernest Stebbins, Hattie Schucha, Gladys Hainan, Earl McKnight, Myrtle Wells, Mable Wells, S. A. Tinker, L. H. McKnight, W. K. McKnight, Birdella M. Waltz, D. J. Tinker, Bessie D. McMillen, Wallace Jones, and Donald J. Estep, Appellants.
No. 49624.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 8, 1959.

Page 180

[250 Iowa 682] Linnan & Lynch, Algona, for appellants.

Kelly, Spies & Culver, Emmetsburg, and Winkel & Winkel, Algona, for appellee.

GARFIELD, Justice.

Vannie M. Neitzel, a childless widow residing at Roundup, Montana, died December

Page 181

11, 1956, the record titleholder of the 160-acre farm in Kossuth County, Iowa, ownership of which is in controversy here. Plaintiff, tenant on the farm since November 1, 1938, brought this equity action in three counts against the administratrix and heirs (cousins) of Mrs. Neitzel. He claims to own the land: first, as grantee of a deed executed September 10, 1956, by Mrs. Neitzel and placed by her in escrow with J. A. Liggett at Roundup; second, under an oral contract with Mrs. Neitzel made on or about December 6, 1956, by which plaintiff agreed to pay her $3,000 a year during her life, the land to be plaintiff's upon Mrs. Neitzel's death; third, as devisee of an alleged holographic will (recognized by Montana law) consisting of certain letters Mrs. Neitzel wrote plaintiff.

Defendants denied the principal averments of plaintiff's petition, alleged Mrs. Neitzel died intestate owning the farm and they are her heirs and asked that their title be quieted as against plaintiff.

Following trial at which most of the evidence was offered by plaintiff his counts 2 and 3 based on the alleged oral contract to convey and the holographic will were dismissed, but his claim under court 1 as grantee of the deed from Mrs. Neitzel was upheld. Defendants' cross-petition was dismissed. Defendants have appealed from the decree and plaintiff has cross-appealed from so much of it as dismissed his counts 2 and 3.

Plaintiff's cross-appeal, although harmless, was unnecessary. We are firmly committed to the view that the successful party (plaintiff here) may, without appealing, save the judgment if error was committed against him which, if corrected, will make the result reached in the trial court a right result. Iowa Electric Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 235 Iowa 672, 676, 17 N.W.2d 414, 416; Pohler v. T. W. Snow Const. Co., 239 Iowa [250 Iowa 683] 1018, 1022, 33 N.W.2d 416, 418; Lawrence v. Tschirgi, 244 Iowa 386, 389, 57 N.W.2d 46, 47, and citations in these opinions.

The principal question under plaintiff's count 1 is whether there was a valid delivery of the deed. When Mrs. Neitzel executed and deposited it with Mr. Liggett it was accompanied by a letter addressed to his agency, signed by her, which read; 'I herewith deposit a deed from myself to Lawrence Brandt of Elmore, Minnesota * * *. You are hereby authorized to deliver this deed to Mr. Brandt, in the event of my death. This deed is deposited subject to withdrawal by me during my lifetime. * * *' (Elmore is plaintiff's post office address.) Mr. Liggett testified he suggested including this last sentence in the letter and, after some discussion, Mrs. Neitzel agreed to it. The deed remained in Liggett's possession until time of trial.

The trial court's holding there was a valid delivery of the deed is based on his conclusions there was a new and independent delivery to the escrow agent after the date of the above letter, prior to Mrs. Neitzel's death, and that she, by her acts and statements in letters to plaintiff dated October 2 and November 5, 1956, by statements to the witnesses Liggett, Mrs. Mentek and Mrs. Bennett after September 10, 1956, and by agreeing on December 6, 1956, to accept an annual payment of $3,000 from plaintiff, in effect waived or revoked the recall provision in the escrow letter.

A rather full statement of facts seems called for. Plaintiff first occupied the farm as tenant of Mrs. Neitzel's father from whom she inherited it. There was a written lease only for the first 14 months of occupancy with oral extensions from year to year thereafter. Mrs. Neitzel, who was about 82 at her death, with failing eyesight and hearing, thought well of plaintiff and wanted him to have the farm at her death. Defendants took little interest in Mrs. Neitzel. She said 'they had plenty of their own,' did not need her property and she did not intend to leave them anything.

In the hope plaintiff might become owner of the farm Mrs. Neitzel wrote him

Page 182

from Roundup July 31, 1956: 'Lawrence would you be interested in buying the place if I made you a good proposition? Could you pay me cash rent similar to what I get out of the place now and you take over [250 Iowa 684] all expenses--taxes--insurance and whatever else there was--then you could have the say so of whatever you wished to do or plant. As long as I live you would pay me the amount agreed upon each year and at my death I will Deed it to you. This is just an idea. Or would you rather buy it outright--a small down payment with set amount each year and at a low rate of interest.

'Now you make me a proposition. With my sight so poor it is almost impossible for me to do so much book work * * *. You have always been very satisfactory and if you can help me out now I would like to do something for you. At my age I feel 10 years at most is the length of my living and any time from now on it is liable to happen. So that is why I would like to get things fixed up now. I know of no one I would rather be the owner when I am thru with the farm than you. * * * So I would like you to express yourself.'

A second letter from Mrs. Neitzel to plaintiff, dated August 30 (1956), stated: 'Here is what I am going to do to protect you. In case I should not wake up some morning * * * or get killed instantly which does happen I am going to Deed the farm to you (at my death) sudden death that is. It will be in an envelope in my * * * Box here in the Miners & Merchants Bank. Your name will be on it ready to mail to you. This will protect you until we get a chance to make a deal of some kind. I only want what is coming to me while I live then it is yours. Now you can do things you would like to do for your own benefit. It is O.K. with me. I would like you to take over all expenses, upkeep, repairs and pay me so much a year. Figure out how much you think you can give me. It is a game of chance for you tho you cannot lose. If I live 1 year 5 years or 10 which would be the most you would get the farm. I cannot take care of the biz and myself. * * * Taxes on the farm run around $400.00 per year. Insurance according to what you want to carry. * * *

'Well please write me what you think of my plan for handling the farm or you may make suggestions. I am open for your opinion. * * *'

[250 Iowa 685] September 13 plaintiff's wife, for him, wrote Mrs. Neitzel, '* * * about the plan you suggested. We've talked it over and considered it alright, but would rather have you say how much you have to have a year.'

Mrs. Neitzel next wrote plaintiff October 2: '* * * was pleased to learn you are interested in some kind of proposition whereby you become owner of the land. You have been very loyal to us so I see no reason why I should not do something for you.

'Now tell me would you rather buy the place and pay it off as you can or would you rather pay me a yearly sum that we can decide on as long as I live be it one week one year or 10 years which is all a gamble however when I die it is yours no strings attached. I want you to take over all the expenses taxes and all so I will not have any of the biz to handle. You decide what & where you plant crops start in the 1st of 1957 as tho it is your own. I am enclosing a copy of the expenses in the past 4 years so you can have an idea what they are.

'Here is what I have done for the time being so to protect you. I had this Deed made out to you in case something should happen to me before we decide on a plan and get it in black & white. This is a copy of the Deed which I hold and ask you to please return it also the expense sheet I would like back. The Deed is in possession of Mr. J. A. Liggett. he is authorized to turn it over to you in case of my death as I said before this holds good until we make up a contract or whatever we do.

Page 183

'* * * So, whatever you wish to do to improve things for your own good you may do * * *.

'* * * Anyway Mr. Liggett says when we decide on some plan he will put it in writing and you can take it to your attorney and make what changes you prefer.

'So I think that will work out. Would you know what land sells for around there? Or who could I write to--to find out in case you decide to buy it. In that case any unpaid balance at my death would be canceled. * * * Write me what you decide--think or wish to do. * * *'

October 8 plaintiff's wife, for him, wrote Mrs. Neitzel: 'Now in buying the place. We've talked it over and believe we'd rather pay the taxes and all expenses and pay you so much [250 Iowa 686] a year as long as you live. Let us know what you think you have to have yearly.'

Mrs. Neitzel's last letter to plaintiff, dated November 5, said: '* * * It is getting so I cannot see to write. * * * That is why I am anxious to get this turned over to you. Spose I will have to notify all concerned to send all papers to you. * * *

'I am still collecting some information before I write you the details. I am glad you chose the chance way. As somehow I fell I am not to be here very many years. Then you will be the winner and that is the way I want it. So go ahead with any plans or changes you wish. It is yours to do as you like. I will get you some figures soon I hope. I will pay 1956 taxes which is not due until March. * * * You will hear from me quite soon.'

The same day this last...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Hayne v. Cook, No. 50275
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 2, 1961
    ...definite, certain and complete offer to the trustee which was accepted. Marti v. Ludeking, 193 Iowa 500, 185 N.W. 476; Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 96 N.W.2d 179; Hunter Investment, Inc. v. Divine Engineering, Inc., 248 Iowa 1109, 1120, 1121, 83 N.W.2d 921, 927. Plaintiff contends and d......
  • Uptown Food Store, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 50969
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 16, 1963
    ...may properly sustain the decree by pleaded propositions not reflected in the trial court's findings and conclusions, Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 682, 96 N.W.2d 179, 181, and matters not argued here are waived, rule 344(a)(4) (Third), Rules of Civil Procedure. II. The trial court's conc......
  • Maytag Co. v. Alward, No. 50442
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 9, 1962
    ...not appeal, is entitled to make the contention just referred to in support of the result reached by the trial court. Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 682-683, 96 N.W.2d 179, 181, and citations. Our review of this equity case is on the merits de novo, not for correction of errors in findings......
  • Emmons v. Ingebretson, Civ. No. 63-C-2012-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 7, 1968
    ...until the execution of the written or more formal instrument." Snater v. Walters, 250 Iowa 1189, 98 N.W.2d 302, 307; Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 96 N.W.2d 179, 186. However, a contract does not necessarily come to fruition in all instances in which the minds of the parties have reached......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Hayne v. Cook, No. 50275
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 2, 1961
    ...definite, certain and complete offer to the trustee which was accepted. Marti v. Ludeking, 193 Iowa 500, 185 N.W. 476; Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 96 N.W.2d 179; Hunter Investment, Inc. v. Divine Engineering, Inc., 248 Iowa 1109, 1120, 1121, 83 N.W.2d 921, 927. Plaintiff contends and d......
  • Uptown Food Store, Inc. v. Ginsberg, No. 50969
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 16, 1963
    ...may properly sustain the decree by pleaded propositions not reflected in the trial court's findings and conclusions, Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 682, 96 N.W.2d 179, 181, and matters not argued here are waived, rule 344(a)(4) (Third), Rules of Civil Procedure. II. The trial court's conc......
  • Maytag Co. v. Alward, No. 50442
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 9, 1962
    ...not appeal, is entitled to make the contention just referred to in support of the result reached by the trial court. Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 682-683, 96 N.W.2d 179, 181, and citations. Our review of this equity case is on the merits de novo, not for correction of errors in findings......
  • Emmons v. Ingebretson, Civ. No. 63-C-2012-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • February 7, 1968
    ...the execution of the written or more formal instrument." Snater v. Walters, 250 Iowa 1189, 98 N.W.2d 302, 307; Brandt v. Schucha, 250 Iowa 679, 96 N.W.2d 179, 186. However, a contract does not necessarily come to fruition in all instances in which the minds of the parties have reached ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT