Clark v. Maurer

• Decision Date: 28 May 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 522,77 Iowa 717
• Parties: CLARK v. MAURER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 717

42 N.W. 522

CLARK

v.MAURER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 28, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; GEORGE W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

Action for specific performance of contract for sale of lands. Judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals.Joy, Hudson & Joy and Craig L. Wright, for appellant.

J. H. Swan, M. Neilon, and S. F. Lynn, for appellees.

GRANGER, J.

On the 16th day of February, 1887, the defendant J. G. Maurer made to the plaintiff a written contract, by the terms of which he agreed to make to the plaintiff a deed of 20 acres of land in Woodbury county, if certain specified payments should be first made. No question is made as to payments, but the defendant J. G. Maurer seeks to avoid the decree for specific performance against him sought in this case, on the ground of alleged fraud by plaintiff in obtaining the contract. The land in controversy is situated about three miles from the business center of Sioux City. The land was bought by Maurer of one Camp on the 15th day of February, 1887, for $50 an acre, and was bought with a view to speculation. One McPherson, having a mortgage on the premises, is a defendant in the case, and has some interest with Maurer in the profits of the transaction. At this time the plaintiff and his brother were real-estate dealers in Sioux City. J. W. Weldon was at the time residing in Sioux City, and was a brother-in-law to the plaintiff, and there is some claim that Weldon was at the time a partner with Clark Bros. On the day of the purchase of the land by Maurer he went to the office of Clark Bros. to make inquiry as to the price of lands; and as to what occurred there and afterwards there is much conflict in the testimony, but, as a result of that and other conferences, the contract in question was made. The essential dispute or controversy between the parties is this: Maurer maintained that, as a result of his talk with Weldon and Clark, he left the land with the firm, composed of whoever it might be, for sale, and for the sale they were to receive a commission of $100. The claim of the plaintiff is that the firm of Clark Bros. had no contract or arrangement whatever with Maurer, but that he left the land with Weldon for sale, for the specified commission, and that Weldon, in pursuance of that arrangement, sold the land to the plaintiff, and that in fulfillment thereof the contract in question was made.

From the testimony we are satisfied that when Maurer went to the office of Clark Bros. he went there to consult the firm, and there was much to cause one not familiar with the actual facts to suppose Weldon was a member of the firm. Weldon had been a partner with the plaintiff, and the sign at the entrance bore the name of Weldon as a member of the firm. It is true that the plaintiff and Weldon, in 1884, organized the firm of “Clark & Weldon,” and as such engaged in the real-estate and other business, and did business in the same place as on the 15th of February, 1887. In 1885 the firm was changed to “Clark Bros. & Weldon,” and continued the same business, (real estate and trading land for goods.) There was a firm of “J. W. Weldon & Co.,” and Clark Bros. had an...