Erickson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 10 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 29859 |
| Citation | 152 N.W. 575,172 Iowa 12 |
| Parties | MARY ERICKSON, Appellee, v. J. H. JOHNSON, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1915.
Appeal from Hamilton District Court.--HON. R. M. WRIGHT, Judge.
ACTION to quiet title to 160 acres of land in Hamilton County, Iowa. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Wesley Martin, for appellant.
G. D Thompson and F. J. Lund, for appellee.
1. The facts in this case, as shown by the undisputed evidence, or satisfactorily established by the evidence, are, substantially: The plaintiff is the widow of Peter Erickson. He died October 8, 1899. For about two years before this death, he had been in poor health. A few days before his death--to be exact, September 23, 1899--he executed and delivered a quitclaim deed to his wife, conveying the 160 acres in controversy, which was recorded October 12, 1899. The deed recites that the consideration is love and affection and $ 1.00. At the time the deed to plaintiff was executed, Peter stated to the notary that he wanted plaintiff to have control of the land after his death; that he was sick, and didn't expect to get well. Before her marriage, plaintiff had worked out and saved about $ 800 of her wages, which was invested in the land in controversy when it was purchased and taken in the name of her husband. After their marriage, she helped make the hay, helped with the corn and harvest, and she testifies--over objection, however, that it was hearsay--that he gave the land to her because she had helped him, and on account of the money that he got from her.
The defendant claims title to an undivided one half of said land under a warranty deed executed to him by plaintiff's husband, in which plaintiff joined, relinquishing her right of dower. This deed is dated December 13, 1892, but was not recorded for nearly seventeen years thereafter, or on August 9, 1909. The deed was kept by the defendant in his safe with other papers. Defendant claimed that he agreed with Peter Erickson not to record the deed because, as he says:
By cross-petition, the defendant asked that his title be quieted, and he also pleaded his deed as an estoppel. Plaintiff is now nearly seventy years of age. She was born in Sweden and came to this country about thirty-two years ago. During substantially all that time, she has lived upon this land. She and her husband settled upon the land and built a small one-room house thereon, and there was a kind of a shed for the horses. Plaintiff continued to live with her husband on the farm until the time of his death, and, as stated, by reason of the physical condition and the habits of her husband, plaintiff was required to, and did, perform labor upon the farm. When the husband died, there were four children. The oldest boy was sixteen. After the husband's death, the mother, with her children, continued to reside upon the land. She and the boys did the work on the farm and she looked after the business of the farm. Soon after her husband's death, she built a barn at an expense of $ 300, and a corncrib. The barn was destroyed by cyclone and she built another at a cost of $ 500, and a double corncrib and granary at a cost of $ 500. She paid for all the improvements. A part of the material was purchased at the town of Stratford, and some of it she purchased of the defendant, paying him therefor.
A drainage district was established across this land and notices of its establishment and the assessment were published in the Stratford paper, the notices describing the land as being in plaintiff's name. An assessment of $ 524 was levied against the land, which she paid.
The land was situated about a mile and a half east of the town of Stratford. She put in and paid out for about five hundred rods of tile on said land. She paid the taxes on the land after the death of her husband, and her husband paid the taxes prior to that time. Defendant claims that he paid, on one or two occasions, a few dollars on the taxes, but we are satisfied from the record that the taxes were paid, as above stated, by plaintiff and the husband. She paid the interest on the $ 2,000 loan obtained by her husband on the premises and made payments of the principal until she had reduced the amount of the loan to $ 1,100, when she acquired a new loan for that amount, giving a mortgage on the premises, and she furnished an abstract of title showing that the title to the premises was in her. She afterwards paid the $ 1,100 mortgage. The banking business was done at the Stratford bank. During all the time of these transactions from the date of her deed in 1899, the record showed the title to the land to be in plaintiff, up to the time that defendant recorded his deed, in 1909. The $ 1,100 mortgage given by plaintiff was recorded in Hamilton county, as was the prior mortgage of $ 2,000. The cashier of the bank testified that for nineteen years prior to this action, he dealt with plaintiff the same as he dealt with any other owner of real estate. After the death of her husband, plaintiff was the reputed owner of the land. Other witnesses testify that Peter Erickson was the reputed owner of the land up to the time of his death. At the time Peter executed the deed to plaintiff, he claimed to be the owner of the land. Plaintiff and other witnesses testify that defendant never claimed any interest in the land until about the time he placed his deed upon record, in 1909. Witnesses testified that defendant and plaintiff's husband were on intimate terms and that witnesses had seen them drinking together, and one witness testifies that defendant furnished whisky to Peter Erickson. Defendant says he does not remember furnishing the whisky, but admits that they did drink together, but says that he never took advantage of Erickson. Plaintiff's daughter says she never heard her father refer to the place in any other way than that it was his, and after her father's death, she heard her mother talk about the place and refer to it as her farm; that soon after her father's death, she was in defendant's store with plaintiff and heard a conversation between plaintiff and defendant; that the subject of what her father owed defendant was brought up; that defendant did not mention the amount owed; that her mother referred to the land in controversy as her farm and told the defendant that she had the mortgage to pay off and improvements to make on the farm; that plaintiff paid defendant some money; that she paid a note which defendant had signed with plaintiff's husband as security; that she never heard defendant mention owning the farm or any part of it. Another witness testifies that, a year or such a matter after Peter died, he heard a conversation between plaintiff and defendant, in which defendant asked the plaintiff to pay some of her husband's account, and plaintiff told defendant that she could not pay just then, because she had to pay off the mortgage and the taxes. At one time, one Swanson informed plaintiff that he had heard that defendant had helped her husband in some way and that he might have some claim against the farm, and advised Mrs. Erickson to see about it. Plaintiff went to a Mr. Drug and showed him her deed from her husband. Defendant was sent for and Mr. Drug showed Mr. Johnson plaintiff's deed and asked him what he had to show. Johnson stated that he had a deed and went to get it, but he never returned. Plaintiff testifies that she then thought it was all right and did not examine any more.
Plaintiff learned to read the Swedish language a little, but could not read English until five or six years prior to the trial. At the time the deed to defendant was given, the plaintiff was not at defendant's place, and she did not see defendant; she did not remember going before the notary to acknowledge signing the paper; she was not present when the deal for the deed to defendant was made; she had no knowledge of the transaction between her husband and the defendant. Her signature, however, to defendant's deed is not disputed.
Defendant lived at Stratford and had been in the hardware and implement business there for thirty years or more. He was well acquainted with plaintiff's husband in his lifetime and they had many deals together. Defendant assisted Erickson by signing notes with him as surety. Defendant owned land near the land in controversy; he did his banking business at the same bank that plaintiff and her husband did their banking business. Peter paid defendant money on account and paid up some of the old debts on account, and notes which defendant had signed with him, and when he would pay such notes he would exhibit them to defendant and show that they had been paid; some of them were turned over to defendant. Within a month or two after her husband died, plaintiff paid defendant $ 100 on account of her husband's indebtedness to defendant, and other amounts within a short time to apply on account. She claims she paid all he asked, but that defendant did not make any itemized account of money owing him from plaintiff's husband. Defendant never was on the 160 acres in controversy but once during the time that Peter Erickson lived there, and he was never on the place after Peter's death until 1909, about the time he put his deed of record. At that time, he told plaintiff that he had received a deed from Peter Erickson. Defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial