Edwards v. Foley
| Decision Date | 22 September 1919 |
| Docket Number | 32729 |
| Citation | 173 N.W. 914,187 Iowa 5 |
| Parties | J. M. EDWARDS et al., Appellees, v. W. S. FOLEY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Audubon District Court.--SHELBY CULLISON, Judge.
ACTION in equity to rescind and cancel an executory contract for the exchange of Iowa farm land owned by the plaintiff for other land owned by the defendants, or one of them, in Saskatchewan, Canada. There was a decree for the plaintiffs as prayed, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
B. A Goodspeed, H. M. Boorman, and J. M. Graham, for appellant.
J. H Ross and Cosson & Francis, for appellees.
The plaintiff J. M. Edwards is a farmer, and, at the time of the transaction in question, he owned a farm of 160 acres in Audubon County. The defendants, Michael Foley and W. S. Foley, were father and son, residing in the same county, and were acquaintances of the plaintiffs'. At some time prior to this date, J. M. Edwards had acquired title to a small tract of irrigated land in Utah, which property he exchanged for a half section of land in Saskatchewan. Plaintiff was unacquainted with the property so obtained, and took it without personal inspection or knowledge of its quality; but, at a later date, when visiting a member of his family in Montana, he took advantage of the occasion to prolong his journey and visit Canada, to look at his land.
Some years prior to this date, W. S. Foley had also become the owner of a section of land in the neighborhood of the tract which plaintiff had acquired, as above stated. Plaintiff appears to have known that Foley owned land in that vicinity, and to have looked at it, in passing, while on his visit to that locality; but it is not shown that he then had any thought of acquiring the property for himself, or that he went upon or examined it, or that he inspected it with a view to its acquirement. The date of this visit to Canada was July, 1916. Some time during the succeeding fall, the matter of the exchange of plaintiff's Iowa farm for the Foley section in Canada became the subject of talk between the parties, the negotiations on the part of W. S. Foley being principally conducted by his father, Michael F. Foley. A written contract was finally executed, under date of October 27, 1916. By its terms, the plaintiff was to convey to W. S. Foley his quarter section farm already mentioned, together with a house and lot in the town of Audubon, at the aggregate price of $ 26,500, to be paid, $ 100 in cash on the signing of the contract, and $ 1,400 on March 1, 1917, when the remainder, of $ 25,000, was to be satisfied by conveyance to plaintiff of the Canada land. Defendants paid plaintiff the installment of $ 100; but otherwise, the agreement for the exchange remains wholly unperformed.
Within a short time after the contract was made, and before the first of the following March, plaintiff, claiming to have been deceived by the defendants' representations as to the condition, quality, and value of the land, notified defendants of his election to rescind the contract, and tendered repayment of the $ 100 installment which he had received. Efforts at a compromise and settlement of the differences so arising between the parties having failed, this action was begun.
I. The fact issues are not unlike those with which courts have so frequently to deal in litigation over sales and exchanges of land, and especially in those cases where the property, or some of it, is situated at a considerable distance from the place of contract, and the complaining party asserts that he was deceived or misled with reference to its character and value. Rohr v. Shaffer, 178 Iowa 943, 160 N.W. 279; Dickinson v. Stevenson, 142 Iowa 567, 570, 120 N.W. 324; Riley v. Bell, 120 Iowa 618, 95 N.W. 170; Sutton v. Greiner, 177 Iowa 532, 159 N.W. 268; Hetland v. Bilstad, 140 Iowa 411, 420, 118 N.W. 422; Scott v. Burnight, 131 Iowa 507, 509, 107 N.W. 422; Franke v. Kelsheimer, 180 Iowa 251, 163 N.W. 239; Hood v. Smith, 79 Iowa 621, 622, 44 N.W. 903; Boddy v. Conover, 126 Iowa 31, 40; Shuttlefield v. Neil, 163 Iowa 470, 472, 145 N.W. 1. The trial court made no specific findings of fact, but held generally that plaintiffs had made a case entitling them to the relief asked. This conclusion is sustainable if we find de novo that the weight of the evidence fairly tends to show that defendants made untrue statements of fact as to the character and value of the Canada land, for the purpose of inducing the exchange of properties, and that plaintiffs entered into the contract believing and relying thereon. As is usual in cases of this character, there is a conflict of testimony concerning many of the items of complaint made by the plaintiffs; but, taking the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that the decree appealed from effects substantial equity between the litigants.
Without reciting the evidence, we have to say that it satisfactorily appears that, at the date of the contract, plaintiff's farm was of the fair value of $ 25,000, and his house and lot of the value of $ 1,500. On the other hand, we are equally well satisfied that defendant's section of land in Canada, which was put into the exchange at $ 25,000, was fairly worth not to exceed $ 20 per acre, or $ 12,800. Now, while we have frequently said that the court will not undertake to make contracts for parties, nor to relieve either party from his agreement, simply because he finds he has made a bad bargain, yet, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial