Henn v. McGinnis
| Decision Date | 18 December 1917 |
| Docket Number | 31653 |
| Citation | 165 N.W. 406,182 Iowa 131 |
| Parties | TILLIE M. HENN, Administratrix, et al., Appellees, v. DAVID D. MCGINNIS, Appellant, et al., Interveners |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Page District Court.--THOMAS ARTHUR, Judge.
SUIT in equity to reform a contract for the sale of real estate on the ground of mutual mistake as to the acreage in the tract sold. The defendant denies that there was any mistake, and especially denies that there was any mistake on his part. There was a decree for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Orr & Turner and John McLennan, for appellant.
Scott & Peters, for appellees.
I.
The plaintiff is the administratrix with will annexed of the estate of Martha J. McGinnis, who was the mother of all the parties hereto. As such administratrix, she brought a proceeding asking for authority to sell certain real estate for the payment of debts, and such authority was accordingly granted. In pursuance thereof, she sold a certain tract to her brother, David D. McGinnis, defendant herein, at an agreed price of $ 110 an acre. A written contract of sale was first entered into. Pursuant thereto, a deed was later executed and delivered. At the time that the contract was entered into, both parties believed that the tract in question contained 32.44 acres; and such was their belief when the deed was executed, a month or so later. The claim of mutual mistake is based upon the fact that notwithstanding such belief of both parties, the tract in question in fact contained 41.69 acres. The plaintiff, having settled with the defendant on the basis of 32.44 acres at $ 110 per acre, brought this action for relief in equity.
The material facts in the case are not greatly in dispute. It appears that the tract in question had been owned in the family for many years. It had been originally a part of the farm of the father of these parties, who died in 1903. Martha J. McGinnis being the surviving spouse, this tract was included in her distributive share. It was an irregular tract, so far as its boundaries were concerned, being located upon the state line between Iowa and Missouri. It had been entered upon the public records as an irregular survey, and the acreage thereof had been entered upon the same records as being 32.44. These figures had been accepted as correct by the family for many years, and the tract was included in the distributive share of the mother, many years ago, upon that acreage basis. Immediately after the delivery of the deed to the defendant, and the receipt of the consideration from him of $ 3,568.40, the plaintiff discovered the alleged mistake. There is no dispute in this record but that the tract contains in fact 41.69 acres. There is no dispute but that the contract and deed contained the correct description of the tract. The only dispute that appears in the evidence is as to what was actually said between the parties prior to their entering into the written contract. For the plaintiff, it is made to appear that an oral agreement was reached on the basis of $ 110 an acre for the tract. The defendant testified that all that he ever agreed to in advance of the written contract was that he would pay from $ 100 to $ 110 an acre for the place, if he was satisfied with it when he looked it over. He also testified that he had made up his mind that he would pay $ 3,568.40 for the tract, and no more. He further testified that he would not have paid any greater sum for it, even if he had known that it contained more than 32.44 acres. We do not regard the dispute at this point as very material, because whatever was said between the parties was merged in the written contract, and such written contract itself shows that the parties had agreed upon $ 110 per acre. Such contract recites an agreement of sale of the tract, correctly described, "for the consideration of $ 110 per acre, amounting to $ 3,568.40, which said consideration said party of the second part hereby agrees to pay to the said party of the first part as follows:"
It will be seen from the above that the contract expressly called for $ 110 per acre. The contract does not in terms state the acreage. It does purport to make the computation of the sum total at $ 3,568.40. Taking this sum total and the price per acre at $ 110, it shows that the computation was made upon the basis of an acreage of 32.44. The only equitable relief asked by the plaintiff is to correct the computation in the contract as having been made upon a wrong basis. We see very little standing room for the defendant in his resistance to her claim. It is urged for him that, if it was a mutual mistake, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial