Cummins v. Monteith

• Decision Date: 21 September 1883
• Citation: 16 N.W. 591,61 Iowa 541
• Parties: CUMMINS v. MONTEITH
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

16 N.W. 591

61 Iowa 541

CUMMINS v. MONTEITH

Supreme Court of Iowa, Council Bluffs

September 21, 1883

Appeal from Appanoose District Court.

THIS is an action in equity to reform certain promissory notes and a mortgage given to secure the payment thereof. There was an answer in denial of the allegations of the petition, and a cross-petition, in which the defendants sought to reform the notes and mortgage in certain particulars. The cause was tried upon written evidence, and a decree was rendered for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Tannehill & Fee, for appellant.

Vermillion & Vermillion, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

The plaintiff was the owner of a farm of one hundred and ten acres, and the defendant, William H. Monteith, was the owner of a house and some lots in the village of Genoa, Wayne county. The defendant went to the plaintiff's house on the farm, and proposed an exchange of property. After some negotiations, it was agreed that plaintiff should convey the farm to the defendant, and he (defendant) should convey to plaintiff the village property, and pay to plaintiff the sum of $ 1,500, to be secured by a mortgage upon the farm. Afterward, and on October 13, 1877, the parties met at the house of the father of the defendant, who was a notary public, and he made the conveyances between the parties. The notes for the $ 1,500 boot money were drawn as follows: One note for $ 200, payable January 1, 1878, and one other note for a like amount payable January 1, 1879; one note for $ 300, payable January 1, 1881 with 10 per cent after date; one for $ 200, payable January 1, 1882, with 10 per cent after due; and one for $ 600 payable January 1, 1884, with 10 per cent after date. There is no controversy as to the two first notes, they having been fully paid. The plaintiff claims that by mistake, or by the fraud of the defendant, the notes did not comply with the contract in this--that all of said notes were dated January 1, 1878, when they should have been dated October 13, 1877, and that all of the notes should have been so written as to draw interest at 10 per cent per annum from this date, payable annually. The mortgage described the notes as dated October 13, 1877, and each bearing 10 per cent interest after due. The plaintiff claimed that the mortgage should be reformed to correspond with what he claimed the notes should be. The defendant, by his cross-petition, claimed...