Jones v. Sargent

• Decision Date: 23 June 1922
• Docket Number: No. 34547.,34547.
• Citation: 188 N.W. 818,193 Iowa 1256
• Parties: JONES v. SARGENT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

193 Iowa 1256

188 N.W. 818

JONES

v.SARGENT ET AL.

No. 34547.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 23, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Cass County; Earl Peters, Judge.

Action by a tenant to recover damages from a landlord. The petition is in two counts, which are more specifically set out in the opinion. Affirmed.Preston & Dillinger, of Avoca, for appellant.

Swan, Clovis & Swan, of Atlantic, for appellees.

FAVILLE, J.

On or about October 27, 1919, the appellant and appellees entered into a written contract whereby the appellees leased to the appellant a farm of 320 acres for an agreed rental of $3,500 a year. In the first count of his petition, the appellant alleges the execution of said written lease and attached to his petition a copy thereof. He alleges that prior to the execution of said written lease the parties entered into negotiations with regard to the renting of said land and that at said time there was a stock well located on said premises equipped with windmill, pipes, and hydrants connecting said well with different tanks in feed yards. He alleges that at said time it was known to both parties that said well was dry, or nearly dry, and did not furnish enough water to supply the stock which appellant intended to keep upon the premises. The appellant then alleges:

“That the defendants orally agreed with plaintiff that, if plaintiff would lease the said premises under the terms and conditions of said Exhibit A hereto attached, they (defendants) would furnish the plaintiff a sufficient supply of water for plaintiff's stock at the feed yards, at the locality where the dry well above referredto was situated, and to connect said supply of water with the windmill, pipes, and tank then connected with the old well, and the plaintiff agreed to so rent said premises, if defendant would so furnish such supply of water for his stock at said location.”

Other allegations of said count are to the effect that the appellant took possession of said premises, and that the appellees failed and neglected to rebuild said well, or dig a new one, and to furnish a sufficient supply of water for appellant's stock. Damages are sought to be recovered because of said failure. The lease contains numerous provisions. It specifically provides that, in consideration of the leasing of the premises, the tenant covenants to pay cash rent in specified amounts and at designated times. It also provides that--

“Party of the first part to provide a supply tank and three drinking tanks; also to build a hog house and material for hog fencing for pasture.”

The appellees demurred to said first count of the petition on the ground that it did not set forth a cause of action against the appellees for the reason that “there is no provision in said written lease that the said defendants will do the things alleged, to wit, furnish a water supply as stated,” and on the ground that evidence of “such oral agreement would modify, add to, change, and contradict the terms of said written lease.”

Appellant's contention is that two separate and distinct contracts were entered into between the parties--one, the written contract of lease; the other a contemporaneous oral contract, by which it was claimed the appellees agreed to furnish a supply of water on said leased premises. Appellant contends that said latter alleged oral contract was an inducement for the execution of the written contract.

[1] We have recently had occasion to consider the question herein presented in the case of Banwart v. Shullenburg, 190 Iowa, 418, 180 N. W. 190. In that case, as in the instant case, the parties entered into a written contract for the leasing of a farm at an agreed cash rental. The petition in said cause alleged:

“That there were not sufficient barn buildings for stock or storage rooms for crops upon said premises, and that the defendant orally agreed to complete an addition to the barn and erect a hoghouse, corncrib, and granary, and to have the same completed before plaintiff moved thereon, except that he agreed to have the corncrib and granary complete and ready for use when needed.”

It was alleged that the landlord had failed and neglected to complete the hoghouse during the term of the lease, or the corncrib and granary when needed for use, and damages were sought for failure to carry out the alleged oral agreement. It was also alleged that the defendant agreed to complete certain tiling on a certain portion of the farm in time to put the ground in suitable condition for planting corn, and that he had failed so to do. The plaintiff sought, upon the trial, to introduce evidence in support of the terms of the alleged oral agreement, which evidence was excluded upon the objection that it tended to vary, modify, and contradict the written contract. We cited many of our former cases in the opinion in said case and it is unnecessary to review them again. In the cited case we said:

“The alleged oral agreements upon which plaintiff's cause of action is based, and to sustain which the excluded evidence was offered, obligated the defendant to tile and drain 80 acres of the land, to complete new improvements and to add to those already upon the premises. Neither of the leases by their terms so bound him.”

In the instant case, the alleged oral agreement upon which appellant's cause of action is based, and to sustain which parol proof would have to be offered, obligated the appellees to furnish the appellant a sufficient supply of water for appellant's stock at the feed yards at the locality where the...