Davidson v. Carter

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DAY
• Citation: 55 Iowa 117,7 N.W. 466
• Decision Date: 10 December 1880
• Parties: DAVIDSON v. CARTER.

55 Iowa 117
7 N.W. 466

DAVIDSON
v.
CARTER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 10, 1880.

Appeal from Clark circuit court.

On the first day of February, 1875, the plaintiff executed to the order of Casper Carter a promissory note for $300, and secured the same by a chattel mortgage. Carter sold and transferred the note and mortgage to one Daniel Miller. Subsequently the plaintiff, pursuant to permission given by Miller, sold a part of the mortgaged property and obtained therefor a note for $250, which he turned over to Miller in part satisfaction of the note secured by the mortgage and transferred to him. Afterwards the plaintiff commenced this action to recover of defendant the amount paid upon the $300 note, upon the ground that it and the mortgage securing it were obtained from the plaintiff without consideration, and by imposing upon and taking advantage of the plaintiff's weakness of intellect. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $262.75 and costs. The defendant appeals.

[7 N.W. 467]

Wilson Bros. for appellant.

P. Sikes and Stuart Bros. for appellee.

DAY, J.

1. The evidence tends to establish the following facts: The plaintiff is an uneducated man, not able to write his name. He is subject to epileptic fits, and is of weak mind. The defendant is a man of more than usual shrewdness. The plaintiff regarded the defendant as his best friend, and the defendant had great influence over him. The administrator of the estate of one Morrison sued the plaintiff, and recovered a judgment for $28. The plaintiff claimed that the debt had been paid, and that the judgment was unjust. He informed the defendant of his situation, and told him he would have the debt to pay a second time, as he had property out of which the debt could be made. The defendant then induced him to execute a note for $300, and secure it by a mortgage upon his personal property not exempt from execution, saying that he would thus hold his personal property for him where it could not be reached for this debt.

The note and mortgage were without consideration. The plaintiff was not aware that he was violating the law in the execution of the mortgage for the purpose of placing his property beyond the reach of creditors. The defendant was aware that the act was a violation of law, and afterwards he sought to deter the plaintiff from disclosing the facts, by telling him that he was liable to be sent to the penitentiary. The point mainly relied...