Butler v. Threlkeld

• Decision Date: 20 May 1902
• Citation: 90 N.W. 584,117 Iowa 116
• Parties: BUTLER v. THRELKELD ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

117 Iowa 116

90 N.W. 584

BUTLER

v.THRELKELD ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 20, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Warren county; A. W. Wilkinson, Judge.

About December 1, 1889, the plaintiff bought the 153 1/2 acres of land in controversy, and on the 17th day of that month entered into a written contract with the defendant, leasing to him said land from January 1, 1890, for five years, at the yearly rental of $241.25, “payments as follows: to pay the interest simultaneously on two certain mortgages, one for $250, one for $1,000, as same matures, the balance on January 1 of each year up to 1895,” and S. A. Threlkeld, in addition to the above annual rent, agrees to pay all the annual taxes on the above land, and it is further agreed by and between the parties, too, that S. A. Threlkeld has the privilege of selling the above land during this lease for more than the purchase money, he paying up the interest taxes and rents up to the time of sale, and the amount over the purchase money to be divided equally between the parties hereto. The defendant paid rent to January 1, 1894, and $34.33 on the year following, and in this action plaintiff seeks recovery thereof to January 1, 1900, with interest. The defendant alleged in his answer and cross petition that, as a part of the contract, it was agreed that he should have the option of buying the land at any time during the term of the lease at the price paid by plaintiff--$3,300--with interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent. per annum and taxes, and that this was omitted from the lease by mutual mistake; that defendant elected to purchase said land about October 1, 1893, and he prayed that the contract be reformed so as to contain the above stipulation, and that upon the payment of said purchase price and interest the plaintiff be compelled to convey to him said land. The cause was transferred to the equity side of the calendar, and, upon hearing, decree entered substantially as prayed by defendant. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.O. C. Brown, for appellant.

W. F. Powell and L. L. Mosher, for appellees.

LADD, C. J.

The lease as written did not contain an option by which defendant was accorded the right to purchase the land within the term fixed. It is contended by the defendant, however, that a stipulation to that effect was omitted by mutual mistake, and that the lease should be so reformed as to include it. The only obstacle in the way seems to be the statute of frauds, under which oral evidence is not competent to establish contracts “for the creation or transfer of any interest in lands, except leases for a term not exceeding one year.” Section 4625, Code. It will be observed that no reference is made in the instrument as written to an option, and it is proposed, first, to prove the oral agreement by which defendant might buy if he should so elect, and, second, because of its omission through mutual mistake, have this injected into the lease relating to the renting of the land and an agency to sell.

That a court of equity may correct a mutual mistake in a contract by including the part omitted and then enforce the contract as reformed, notwithstanding the apparent prohibition of the statute of frauds, seems to have been settled by this court in the early case of Ring v. Ashworth, 3 Iowa, 452. That ruling has the support of many decisions and most text-books. Gillespie v. Moon, 2 Johns. Ch. 585, 7 Am. Dec. 559;Wall v. Arrington, 13 Ga. 88;Mosby v. Wall, 23 Miss. 81, 55 Am. Dec. 71; Philpott v. Elliott, 4 Md. Ch. 273; Tilton v. Tilton, 9 N. H. 385;Moale v. Buchanan, 11 Gill & J. 314;Bellows v. Stone, 14 N. H. 175;Bradford v. Bank, 13 How. 57, 14 L. Ed. 49;Ruhling v. Hackett, 1 Nev. 365;Caley v. Railroad Co., 80 Pa. 363;Smith v. Jordan, 13 Minn. 264 (Gil. 246), 97 Am. Dec. 232;Hunter v. Bilyeu, 30 Ill. 228;Schwass v. Hershey, 125 Ill. 653, 18 N. E. 272;Fishack v. Ball, 34 W. Va. 644, 12 S. E. 856;Redfield v. Gleason, 61 Vt. 220, 17 Atl. 1076, 15 Am. St. Rep. 889;Strickland v. Barber, 76 Mich. 310, 43 N. W. 449. Notwithstanding this array of authority, the writer would be inclined, but for the former decision of this court, to the view that relief in such a case should be denied. The court ought not to write into a contract that which, to be enforceably the law, required the parties not only to agree to, but to reduce to writing, in order to be enforceable. It seems like an indirect attempt to enforce the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of land, and this is the conclusion...