Knapp v. Schemmel
| Decision Date | 19 January 1910 |
| Parties | KNAPP v. SCHEMMEL & ARMSTRONG. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; Robert Bonson, Judge.
“Not to be officially reported.”
The opinion states the case. Modified and affirmed.J. P. Frantzen and T. J. Fitzpatrick, for appellants.
John Howe and G. A. Barnes, for appellee.
On the 8th day of March, 1907, the plaintiff entered into a written contract with the defendant partnership, whereby he agreed to purchase 480 acres of land in Brown county, S. D., and pay therefor the sum of $16,000. On the 12th day of the same month he notified the defendants that he would not comply with the terms of the contract or take the land, and on the 15th day of April, 1907, he commenced this action, alleging in his petition that he had been induced to enter into the said contract by the fraudulent representations of the defendants. He asked that the contract be set aside and be decreed to be null and void. The defendants answered denying the fraud alleged. They pleaded compliance with the terms of the contract, and asked that a decree be entered compelling the plaintiff to comply therewith. The trial court made a special finding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the plaintiff's allegations of fraud, and insufficient to warrant a decree of specific performance, and then found as follows: “(3) That the plaintiff was deceived by the defendants in the procurement of said contract, and the said contract is unconscionable, and should not be enforced in either law or equity.” Following this it was adjudged that the petition be dismissed, that the prayer for specific performance be denied, that the contract was null and void, and that it be canceled and set aside. The costs of the action, except for the defendants' witnesses, were taxed to the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.
The case is in equity and comes to us for a trial de novo. The decree of the trial court is not entirely consistent with the special findings; but, notwithstanding this, we think it right in so far as it holds the contract invalid. We have given the record careful examination and consideration, and reach the conclusion that the contract in question was procured by the fraud of the defendants, and should therefore be canceled. There were fraudulent representations as to both the quality and value of the lands. The plaintiff was on a part of the land, it is true; but at the time it was covered with snow, and he...
To continue reading
Request your trial