Kavalier v. Machula

• Decision Date: 01 February 1889
• Citation: 41 N.W. 590,77 Iowa 121
• Parties: KAVALIER ET AL. v. MACHULA ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 121

41 N.W. 590

KAVALIER ET AL.

v.MACHULA ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 1, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Tama county; J. L. STEVENS, Judge.

This is an action in equity, brought for the cancellation of an agreement in regard to real estate, to quiet title, and for an accounting. A decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.Rickel & Crocker, for appellant.

Caldwell & Drahos and Struble & Stiger, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

The petition alleges that in the year 1867 the plaintiff, Joseph Kavalier, purchased the 120 acres of land therein described; that he paid down one-fourth of the purchase price, and gave his note for the remainder; that thereafter the plaintiffs, who were then and are now husband and wife, improved said land, erected thereon a dwelling-house, and made it their homestead; that, while it was their homestead, the plaintiff, Joseph Kavalier, alone made an oral agreement with his son Joseph, whereby the latter was to become the owner of the land, upon condition that he should improve all of it not then improved, and pay the unpaid portion of the purchase price, and deliver to his father one-fourth of all crops raised thereon during the life-time of the father, and also allow him to retain thereon two cows, and occupy two rooms in the house; and that, in case the wife of the father should survive him, she was to succeed to his right to a share of the crops and other privileges named. The petition further states that in 1875 the son died, and left surviving him the defendant Kate--who afterwards married her co-defendant, John Machula--and two children, of whom defendant Julia only is now living; that since the death of the son Joseph the covenants to be kept by him have not been performed by any one; that defendants have abandoned the premises; that the son failed to pay the balance of the purchase price, and that the same was paid by his father; that in the fall of 1875 the father brought suit against the administrator of the estate of his son, the defendant Kate, and her children, to recover the portion of the purchase price which the son had neglected to pay, and for a specific performance of the oral agreement with the son; that in said suit the father recovered judgment for said portions of the purchase price, with interest, and obtained a decree for specific performance of said agreement; that the premises were sold to satisfy the judgment, and that redemption was afterwards made from said sale by the payment to the proper clerk of $521.50, which still remains in his hands; that, notwithstanding the facts aforesaid, defendants have neglected and refused to perform said agreement, and comply with the decree of court. The plaintiffs tender to defendants so much of the redemption money in the hands of the clerk as they shall be found entitled to receive, and ask that the oral agreement between the father and son be annulled; that plaintiff, Joseph Kavalier, be decreed to be the owner of the premises in fee-simple; and that his title be quieted as against defendants, and that an accounting be had, and that general equitable relief be given. The answer denies that the plaintiff, Joseph, purchased the land, and alleges that it was purchased by Joseph, the son, and denies most of the allegations of the petition. In a portion of the answer entitled “Second Division,” the defendants set out substantially the oral agreement pleaded by plaintiff, and allege that after the death of Joseph, Jr., the plaintiff, Joseph, and defendant Kate, with the knowledge and consent of the wife of the father, entered into an agreement in writing, whereby defendant Kate was to succeed to the rights and obligations of her deceased husband, under the said oral agreement; that under said written agreement defendant Kate remained upon said premises, and performed her obligations thereunder, until April, 1876, when she was driven away by plaintiffs, and prevented from fulfilling on her part the conditions of her said agreement. The defendants ask that this agreement be established; that the land be declared to be the property of defendants Kate and Julia at the death of plaintiffs; and for general equitable relief. By an amendment to their answer defendants allege that, ever since the entry of the...