Hood v. Smith

• Decision Date: 12 February 1890
• Citation: 44 N.W. 903,79 Iowa 621
• Parties: HOOD v. SMITH ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

79 Iowa 621

44 N.W. 903

HOOD

v.SMITH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 12, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Union county; R. C. HENRY, Judge.

Action in equity to set aside a contract for the sale of lands. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.Maxwell & Leonard and Jas G. Buel, for appellants.

McDiel & Sullivan, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

1. Plaintiff and defendant Estella C. Hood and Celesta A. Smith are, respectively, the wives of J. C. Hood and H. M. Smith, and, as in the transaction which is the subject-matter of this action the husbands were the agents and negotiators, in our consideration of the case we will refer to them as the parties for convenience. In February, 1887, the plaintiff owned 120 acres of land in Union county, Iowa, on which there was a mortgage of $2,000. The defendant Smith, at the same time, owned a half section of land in Custer county, Neb. Hood and Smith met at Creston, Iowa, and negotiated an exchange of lands; Hood being allowed by the terms of the trade to retain the use of the Union county land for the year 1887, and he to pay the taxes for that year. The consideration paid by Smith for the Union county land was the Nebraska land, the $2,000 incumbrance on the Union county land, and the use of the land for the year 1887. The estimates placed upon the lands by their owners in their negotiations were $35 per acre for the Union county land, and $8 per acre for the Nebraska land. Neither Smith nor Hood had ever seen the Nebraska land, and it is claimed in this action that Hood purchased it relying on Smith's representations that it was good farming land, and would make a good stock farm; and we are asked to rescind the contract of sale on the ground that such representations were false. With regard to the true character of the Nebraska land, our examination of the evidence satisfies us that it was not good farm land, or suitable for a good stock farm. The testimony as to its character is not entirely harmonious, yet it is so strong in favor of our conclusion as to leave little room for doubt as to its correctness.

The most reliable evidence of the character of the land, we think, is from residents of Nebraska, who reside in its neighborhood. Some seven such witnesses have been examined,--four for plaintiff, and three for defendant. All the witnesses agree that the land is badly cut by canons or gullies. They do not entirely agree as to the extent of such canons. One Peet, examined for plaintiff, says of the land that it is too rough for stock-raising, or raising corn, oats, or wheat; that several ravines run through it 80 feet high, and from 200 to 600 feet wide; that they damage the land 75 per cent. for farming purposes; that good farming land (uncultivated) is worth from $10 to $12 per acre; that the land in question is worth $2.50 per acre; that one quarter section contains 5 acres of plow land, and the other 15 acres. The other three witnesses examined for plaintiff fix the amount of plow land at from 15 acres to 25 on the half section. They fix the value of the land at from $2 to $2.50 per acre. Three of them say, in terms, that the land is not suitable for a stock farm; and, while the other says “the place is fair for stock-raising,” he also says “it is not fit for raising corn, wheat, or oats;” “not good farming land;” “not good hay land.” This witness lives half a mile west of the land, and fixes its value at $2.50 per acre. These witnesses, all in a general way, corroborate the witness Peet as to the canons and general topography of the land. A Mr. Johnson, examined for defendant, describes the land as rough, except two pieces,--one of 5 acres, and one of 20 acres. He says the canons are deep cuts, and there are three of them on the land; that any of the land would produce grass, and that, aside from about 20 acres, the land is rolling and rough; that it would not be a good farm for raising grain, but all right to pasture stock. One Hummell, for defendant, says 100 acres of the land could...