Carson v. Mikel

• Decision Date: 22 November 1927
• Docket Number: 38199
• Citation: Carson v. Mikel, 205 Iowa 657, 216 N.W. 60 (Iowa 1927)
• Parties: H. M. CARSON, Appellee, v. RAY MIKEL, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

216 N.W. 60

205 Iowa 657

H. M. CARSON, Appellee, v. RAY MIKEL, Appellant

No. 38199

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 22, 1927

REHEARING DENIED MARCH 10, 1928.

Appeal from Hamilton District Court.--H. E. FRY, Judge.

Action by vendor of real estate to compel specific performance of a contract on the part of the vendee in the payment of balance due on the purchase price. The defendant pleaded misrepresentation and fraud in procuring the contract, that the plaintiff never tendered performance, and that the contract was unconscionable. The trial court granted the plaintiff the relief prayed.

Affirmed.

F. J Lund and R. G. Remley, for appellant.

Martin & Alexander, for appellee.

FAVILLE J. EVANS, C. J., and STEVENS, KINDIG, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

FAVILLE, J.

On April 4, 1923, the parties hereto entered into a written contract by which the appellant agreed to purchase from the appellee 170 acres of land in Hamilton County. The agreed price was $ 47,600, of which amount $ 2,210 was paid in cash, and the contract provided that the vendee should assume two mortgages, one of $ 41,000 and another of $ 2,000, and should pay the balance of the purchase price, to wit, $ 2,390, in cash upon March 1, 1924. The contract provided that the appellee should furnish appellant with an abstract of title, showing good and merchantable title, free and clear of all liens and incumbrances except said two mortgages. This action is to recover the cash payment of $ 2,390 provided for in the contract.

It is contended that the appellee was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in regard to the farm, at the time the contract was entered into, particularly with respect to the tiling on the place and with regard to the value of the farm. The appellant is a farmer, 42 years of age, residing in the vicinity of the farm in question. Before entering into said contract, he examined said farm for the purpose of informing himself in regard thereto, and with a view of determining whether he should enter into a contract of purchase with the appellee. Appellee was not present at the time the appellant made such examination. We are satisfied, from an examination of the record, that there were no false or fraudulent representations made to the appellant that induced him to enter into the contract. Appellant was not a stranger in the locality. If not thoroughly familiar with land values in that vicinity, he could easily have obtained full information in regard thereto. The parties dealt with each other at arm's length. There was no confidential or fiduciary relation existing between them, although they were on good terms and friendly.

Specific performance should not be denied in this case because of appellant's claim of fraud or false representations. There were none.

It is contended that the contract is so harsh and unconscionable that a court of equity should not decree specific performance. The contract proved in the long run to be improvident, but a court of equity cannot relieve competent parties who enter into contracts that...