Christy v. Badger

• Decision Date: 13 October 1887
• Citation: 72 Iowa 581,34 N.W. 427
• Parties: CHRISTY AND OTHERS v. BADGER AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 Iowa 581

34 N.W. 427

CHRISTY AND OTHERS

v.BADGER AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 13, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Lucas county.

Action to quiet the title to land. There was a decree in the district court for plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.T. M. Stuart, for appellants.

Mitchell & Penick, for appellees.

BECK, J.

1. The land in controversy was owned by C. W. Christy, in his life-time. The plaintiffs claim by inheritance from him. Defendants claim under a will made by him. A demurrer to defendants' answer, setting up title under the will, was sustained. The questions in the case involve the sufficiency of the will to vest the title in defendants. The devise in the will under which defendants claim is in this language: “A small farm in Wayne county, Iowa, near Missouri line, my father is to have during his life-time, and after his death it shall be divided among the children of my friend H. C. Badger.” The land in controversy is not in Wayne county, but is in Lucas county. The answer alleges that the devisor purchased, in connection with the land in controversy, 40 acres, another tract of 10 acres, which was to be used to supply wood and timber for use on the other tract. The smaller tract was in Wayne county; and, as shown by the description given in the petition, was about six miles from the larger tract. It is alleged that the land was purchased by the devisor as a home for his father.

2. The record presents the case of a false description of land which it is claimed was intended to be devised by the will. And we are required to determine whether that part of the description in the will which is true, is sufficientto identify the land, or to that end may be aided by the evidence aliunde.

We think it cannot be doubted that parol evidence, or evidence dehors the will, is not admissible to supply omissions therein, or to vary or control its terms, nor can it be denied that such evidence may be used to explain a latent ambiguity, and in such case to direct the application of the description to the subject. The cases bearing upon the question before us are numerous, and to some extent difficult to harmonize. They are extensively cited in Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Iowa, 674, which, in our opinion, sustains the conclusion that the devise before us cannot be applied to the land in controversy by evidence dehors the will. A few cases other than those cited in Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick could be referred to, but we think...