Cantonwine v. Bosch
| Decision Date | 27 September 1910 |
| Citation | 127 N.W. 657,148 Iowa 496 |
| Parties | E. A. CANTONWINE, Appellant, v. BOSCH BROTHERS and others, Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marshall District Court.--HON. C. B. BRADSHAW, Judge.
ACTION in equity to set aside an agreement transferring certain property and funds to the defendants and for a money judgment. The petition was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Boardman & Lawrence and Burnham & Egermayer, for appellant.
J. L Carney and F. L. Meeker, for appellees.
During the period covered by the transactions in controversy, the defendants were the proprietors of a general country store at the village of Van Cleve in Marshall county, and the plaintiff was a young physician who made the store his headquarters and when not attending professional calls assisted in and about the business. He entered upon his practice in Van Cleve in the year 1902, at which time the store was owned and managed by one Millhouse, and until his marriage in 1903 was given his board for the assistance he rendered the proprietors. In December, 1904, the defendants purchased and took charge of the business; the plaintiff continuing to render similar service when not engaged in his practice. He received no compensation other than his cigars and the privilege of purchasing goods and household supplies at cost. Prior to April 3, 1907, the plaintiff, who claims to have enjoyed a profitable practice and to have made profit upon investments, had lent defendants various sums of money and on the date mentioned their indebtedness to him was about $ 2,800. On that day they charged him with appropriating and converting to his own use moneys aggregating a large sum from the funds belonging to them and demanded settlement and payment at once. The substance of the demand made by them upon the plaintiff was that he should cancel their debt to him and pay them the further sum of $ 5,000. After some negotiation the plaintiff surrendered to defendants their notes to the amount of $ 2,800 and certificates of deposit held by him amounting to the further sum of $ 3,365.74. To set aside these transfers, or, in lieu thereof, to recover the value of said securities, this action was instituted. The relief thus demanded is on the alleged ground that plaintiff's compliance with defendants' demands and the delivery of said papers were exacted from him under duress and by undue influence and coercion and made in pursuance of an unlawful agreement for the compounding of a charge of felony. The defendants deny that they exercised any duress over the plaintiff or coerced him to said agreement. They admit having received from plaintiff the securities mentioned to the amount of $ 6,165.74, but aver that said sum was paid them upon settlement of their claim, which settlement was voluntarily made and agreed to by plaintiff, who thereafter and during the same day reaffirmed it by delivering over the said notes and certificates. On trial to the court a decree was entered in defendants' favor dismissing the bill, and plaintiff appeals.
As will be seen from the foregoing statement, the question at issue is essentially one of fact. The trial was a protracted one and a large mass of testimony was introduced, most of which bears more or less directly upon the manner in which the business at defendants' store was carried on, the character and extent of plaintiff's connection therewith, and the circumstances relied upon by defendants to justify their claim and belief that plaintiff had for a long time been appropriating moneys belonging to them. We shall not undertake any review of this evidence. While much of it is to our minds of a very weak and inconclusive character, there is some which, if true, tends quite clearly to sustain the accusation preferred by the defendants. To say the least, it makes a case...
To continue reading
Request your trial