Conlee v. Heying

• Citation: 62 N.W. 678,94 Iowa 734
• Parties: CONLEE ET AL. v. HEYING.
• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

94 Iowa 734

62 N.W. 678

CONLEE ET AL.

v.HEYING.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 3, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Lee county; J. M. Casey, Judge.

On the 8th day of March, 1880, the plaintiffs, William Conlee and wife, made to the defendant their promissory note for $1,200, and secured the same by mortgage on the S. E. 1/4, section 15, township 67, range 5 W., in Lee county, Iowa. Thereafter, proceedings were instituted to foreclose said mortgage, and on the 12th day of January, 1883, the plaintiffs, by a warranty deed, conveyed the mortgaged premises to the defendant, Heying, for a consideration therein expressed of $2,716, and the foreclosure proceedings were thereupon discontinued. At this time an agreement was signed, by the terms of which Conlee rented the farm for one year, with the privilege of two years, and was to have the right to purchase the farm within one year. The plaintiffs have continued to occupy the farm from that time to the present. In February, 1888, another lease was signed, whereby the farm was leased to Conlee for one year, with the right to purchase the farm at any time before January 1, 1889, for a consideration of $3,062, and with a provision that there should be no such right after that date. There was no such purchase. The $2,716 which forms the consideration for the deed to defendant is made up of the $1,200, to secure which defendant held the mortgage; a $500 schoolfund debt, and interest, which was assigned to defendant; and some judgments against Conlee, which were liens on the land, and were paid by defendant. It is plaintiffs' claim that the deed to defendant was intended as a mortgage to secure the consideration expressed in it, and that it was agreed, upon the payment of that sum with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum, that defendant should reconvey the land to them. In March, 1891, plaintiffs tendered to defendant $3,100, being the amount specified in the deed, with interest, and demanded a deed, which defendant refused, claiming to own the land; and this action is to cancel the deed to defendant, of record, and for equitable relief. The district court adjudged the conveyance to be, in effect, a mortgage, and that plaintiffs, upon the payment of the amount due, were entitled to a reconveyance. Affirmed.O. C. Herminghausen, for appellant.

J. D. M. Hamilton and A. H. Stutsman, for appellees.

GRANGER, J.

The question in the case is one of fact, as to the intention or agreement of the parties when the deal was made. The deed, on its face, and the leases, indicate an absolute conveyance to, and ownership of the land by, the defendant. To...