Donaldson v. Smith

• Decision Date: 25 January 1904
• Parties: S. F. DONALDSON, Appellee, v. W. H. SMITH AND SARAH M. SMITH, Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 N.W. 138

122 Iowa 388

S. F. DONALDSON, Appellee, v. W. H. SMITH AND SARAH M. SMITH, Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 25, 1904

Appeal from Iowa District Court.--HON. M. J. WADE, Judge.

SUIT in equity for the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real estate. The trial court granted the relief asked, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Brown & Brown for appellants.

Stockman & Hamilton for appellee.

OPINION

DEEMER, C. J.

Plaintiff and defendant W. H. Smith entered into the following contract:

"This contract and agreement entered into this twenty-eighth day of October, 1901, by and between William H Smith, party of the first part and Sam'l F. Donaldson party of the second part, whereby the first party for and in consideration of sixteen hundred dollars ($ 1,600) does by these presents grant, bargain and sell unto the second party that parcel of land described as follows:--The north-west quarter of the north-west quarter of section twenty-two (22) township seventy eight (78) north of range twelve (12) west of the 5th P. M. in Dayton Township, Iowa County, Iowa.

"Said consideration to be paid to William H. Smith in manner as follows: Twenty dollars ($ 20) on execution of this contract and the balance to be paid on execution or delivery to said Sam'l F. Donaldson of a good and sufficient warranty deed for said property, free from all encumbrances on or before March 1st, 1902.

"In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands this twenty eighth day of October, 1901.

"[Signed]

W. H. Smith.

"S. F. Donaldson."

The $ 20 payment was made to Smith at the time the contract was executed, and, after making the contract and receiving the money he returned to his home, and told his wife of the nature of the bargain. She thereupon said that she would not sign a deed for the land, and Smith almost immediately returned to the place where he had left the plaintiff, told him that his wife would not sign the deed, and that he could not comply with his contract. At the same time he offered to return the money received by him, but plaintiff refused to accept it. Thereafter plaintiff tendered W. H. Smith the balance of the purchase price, and demanded a deed, but he (Smith) failed and refused to make a conveyance of the property. This suit followed. It appears from the evidence that before the contract was made W. H. Smith consulted his wife about selling the property, and that she gave him permission to make the sale. Her objection to the contract as made seemed to be that she thought her husband should have received $ 200 more for the land. She said, while on the witness stand, that she told him (her husband) to sell, and that she would have agreed to sign the deed for the land had the consideration been $ 200 more. Aside from some questions presented by an assignment of error to which we shall hereafter give attention, the main points relied upon by appellants are: First, that the contract was upon condition that Mrs. Smith would sign the...