Frey v. Camp

• Decision Date: 13 June 1906
• Citation: 107 N.W. 1106,131 Iowa 109
• Parties: CHARLES A. FREY, Appellant, v. J. H. CAMP, ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

107 N.W. 1106

131 Iowa 109

CHARLES A. FREY, Appellant, v. J. H. CAMP, ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 13, 1906

Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. A. P. BARKER, Judge.

ACTION for reformation of contract to convey land and for specific performance thereof. After a trial on the merits a decree was entered dismissing plaintiff's petition, and the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Ruymann & Ruymann (Lane & Waterman, of counsel), for appellant.

W. H Campbell and Salinger, Scott & Theophilus, for appellees.

OPINION

MCCLAIN, C. J.

In November, 1901, defendant J. H. Camp, who was then the owner of lots 7 and 8, in block 65, of a certain addition to the city of Davenport (the title to a part of lot 8 being however, of record in his wife, who is made a party defendant with him), executed a lease to one Keeler of lot 7 and the east 26 feet of lot 8 for a term of ten years at a yearly rental of $ 540, with the option to the lessee to purchase the property within three years from December 1, 1901, for the sum of $ 7,500; the lessee "to have after the expiration of such three-year term the first right to purchase the said leased property, providing that a price can be agreed upon." Subsequently Keeler's rights were assigned to plaintiff, who, before the expiration of the three-year period erected a building at the expense of about $ 4,000 on the premises, and about the end of the three-year period, as will more specifically appear, attempted to exercise the option of purchase. This action is brought first to reform the instrument of lease, so it shall cover lot 7 and the east half, instead of the east 26 feet, of lot 8 (by which latter description about six feet of lot 8 would be included which is not covered by the description in the instrument), and to enforce specific performance of a conveyance of the premises under an exercise of the terms of the option.

As to the reformation of the instrument, it is sufficient to say that the evidence does not clearly and satisfactorily establish any mistake or fraud justifying such reformation. Schrimper v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 115 Iowa 35, 82 N.W. 916; Chapman v. Dunwell, 115 Iowa 533 88 N.W. 1067. Not only is there a failure of clear and satisfactory evidence to show that by mistake or fraud the strip in controversy was omitted from the lease, but we are satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence is that the lease as executed...