Johnson v. Carter

• Decision Date: 12 March 1909
• Citation: 143 Iowa 95,120 N.W. 320
• Parties: JOHNSON v. CARTER ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

143 Iowa 95

120 N.W. 320

JOHNSON

v.CARTER ET AL.^d1

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 12, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; James A. Howe, Judge.

Action in equity to set aside certain conveyances, and to quiet title to real estate. Decree denying equitable relief, but giving plaintiff a money judgment against the defendants Carter and Rumbaugh, who appeal. Affirmed.Bowen & Brockett, for appellants.

A. K. Stewart, for appellee.

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff alleges and his testimony tends to show that he, being at the time the owner of a house and lot in Des Moines, authorized the defendant Carter, a real estate agent, to sell the same subject to a mortgage thereon at the net price of $1,150. At this time Carter had upon his list a 40-acre tract of land in Missouri, which was owned, nominally at least, by the defendant Rumbaugh, for whom Carter was acting as agent, or with whom he was jointly interested in said land. Carter reported to plaintiff that he had sold the house and lot to Rumbaugh at the authorized price, and procured plaintiff to execute and place in his hands a deed therefor to the alleged purchaser, Rumbaugh, the plaintiff supposing, as he alleges, that he was to receive the net purchase price in cash. Carter had for some time held a deed from Rumbaugh for the Missouri land, in which deed the blank for the name of the grantee had been left unfilled. At the time of procuring the deed from plaintiff to Rumbaugh, or soon afterwards, Carter wrote plaintiff's name as grantee in the deed for the Missouri land, and procured plaintiff to sign a contract to sell said land to one Marts, a person without financial responsibility. Carter and Rumbaugh represented to plaintiff that the Missouri land was worth as much or more than his equity in the house and lot, knowing at the same time that such representations were false, and that plaintiff had no knowledge of the truth in respect thereto, and also represented to plaintiff that Marts was anxious to buy the land, and would enter into a contract for its purchase, and pay therefor on or before the 1st day of January following, thereby securing the receipt by plaintiff of the price of his house and lot. Plaintiff is a native of Sweden, and not well versed in the English language, and is evidently an unsophisticated person, well calculated to become the prey of those who are inclined to take advantage of the weak and unwary. He seems to have understood the Missouri land deal was simply a method by which Carter and Rumbaugh were securing to him the net price of his house and lot, which sum was to be paid him on or before the 1st of the following January, as above stated. Marts concedes that he agreed to pay the pretended purchase price for the land on the date named, and that he has in fact never paid anything thereon, except the sum of $100, which he claims to have paid Carter, who absorbed it as commission. It is also the claim of plaintiff that the sale of the land to Marts by Carter and Rumbaugh was a mere pretense, arranged by them to induce him to part with title to his house and lot, when they well knew that Marts was irresponsible, and that said sale would never be consummated. All of the deeds and papers were left in the possession of Carter, who tolled the plaintiff along by various promises and representations, and not until after January 1st did plaintiff awake to the realization that his property was gone, and he had nothing whatever of value to show for it. Meanwhile Rumbaugh had conveyed the house and lot to the defendant Augustine, who in turn conveyed to the defendant Willey, who appears to have purchased without knowledge of the fraud which had been perpetrated upon the plaintiff. On the other hand, Carter and Rumbaugh plead and offer testimony to show that in all of their dealings with plaintiff they acted in entire good faith, and that plaintiff has sustained no wrong or injury at their hands. By agreement of parties the issues joined were referred to Hon. W. H. Bailey, to hear the testimony and to report his findings thereon. Trial was had before the referee, who reported his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Stated briefly, he found that plaintiff's allegations of fraud and deception as against Carter and Rumbaugh were sustained by the evidence, and that the defendant Augustine, and thereafter the defendant Willey, had taken title to the house and lot in good faith, and that such title ought not to be set aside or disturbed in this proceeding, but that plaintiff ought to be compensated by the recovery of a personal judgment against Carter and Rumbaugh for the sum of $1,145, with interest from January 1, 1907, upon payment of which plaintiff should be required to convey to said defendants whatever right or interest he may have in the Missouri land. The defendants' exceptions to the referee's report were overruled by the court, and decree entered as there recommended.

1. The principal contention on part of counsel for the appellant is to the effect that the charge of fraud is not sustained by the record, but a reading of all of the testimony leads u...