Federal Farm Mtg. Corp. v. Smith, 8438
| Citation | 68 S.D. 136,299 N.W. 237 |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | 8438 |
| Parties | FEDERAL FARM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. MARGUERITE C. SMITH, et al, Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County, SD
#8438–Affirmed.
Louis H. Smith, Sioux Falls, SD
Attorney for Appellants.
Attorneys for Respondent.
Opinion filed July 8, 1941, Rehearing Denied Sep 20, 1941
The plaintiff brought this action to recover installments due under a contract for the sale of real estate. The defendants answered and alleged that at the time of the execution of the contract the plaintiff promised to insert in the contract the provision in writing that, if the 1937 crop on the land was substantial, and the defendants elected to go on with the provisions of the said contract, the plaintiff would accept the proceeds from said 1937 crop for the payment due under the contract on September 1, 1937, which is one of the payments plaintiff is seeking to recover in this action. The defendants then allege that the plaintiff fraudulently omitted to insert such provision in the contract and without defendants’ knowledge or consent did insert a provision, as follows: “Proceeds of 1937 crop, if any, is to be applied on the September 1, 1937 payment under this contract.” By way of counterclaim defendants alleged that, relying upon the promise of the plaintiff to have the contract disclose the real agreement of the parties, defendants paid to the plaintiff the sum of $500 for which defendants asked judgment. The issues as thus made were fully and fairly submitted to the jury by the trial court. The evidence upon these issues was conflicting and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence in our opinion amply supports this verdict.
Appellants argue principally the alleged error of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial because of certain proceedings had with reference to a quitclaim deed made by the defendants. It appears that defendants had owned this land covered by the contract some years before, and plaintiff had foreclosed a mortgage which it held thereon. The land was purchased by the plaintiff in the foreclosure proceeding and a sheriff’s certificate of sale issued. A deficiency remained after the sale, and plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover this deficiency. At the time the negotiations were being had whereby the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial