Krause v. Redman

• Citation: 112 N.W. 91,134 Iowa 629
• Parties: KRAUSE v. REDMAN.
• Decision Date: 04 June 1907
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

134 Iowa 629

112 N.W. 91

KRAUSE

v.REDMAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 4, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Clay County; A. D. Bailie, Judge.

The opinion states the case. Affirmed.

Buck & Kirkpatrick, for appellant.

G. H. Martin and F. F. Faville, for appellee.

WEAVER, C. J.

In September, 1901, the defendant was a resident of Illinois and the plaintiff, his son-in-law, resided in Clay county, Iowa. About the date named defendant visited the plaintiff in Clay county, and while there decided to purchase an 80-acre farm if a suitable one could be found. After some investigation the plaintiff and defendant entered into a joint contract to purchase two 80-acre tracts from one Bunce at the agreed price of $53 per acre. By an agreement between themselves the defendant was to take in severalty the north 80 acres and the plaintiff the south 80 acres, and at their request Bunce made to them separate deeds of conveyance accordingly. Defendant did not have on hand the money with which to complete the purchase on his part, but thereafter sent or paid over to plaintiff a sum equal to one-half the purchase price of the 160 acres, and plaintiff closed the deal with Bunce. The plaintiff claims, however, that an oral agreement existed between himself and defendant, whereby the latter, in consideration of obtaining the north 80, was to pay $5,000 of the purchase money due to Bunce; and, as he has fully settled with the latter, plaintiff brings action, demanding the recovery of the alleged unpaid remainder from the defendant. In other counts of his petition plaintiff seeks further recovery for oats and hay alleged to have been furnished the defendant, for a cow and calf and pigs sold to the defendant, for moneys advanced, and for rent of leased land. By his answer defendant admitted the joint purchase of the Bunce land and the agreement between himself and plaintiff that each should take an 80-acre tract in severalty, but denies that he ever promised or agreed to pay for his portion any more than the price named in the contract with Bunce. As to the other claims asserted by the plaintiff, defendant denies them in part, and as to others alleges full payment. Upon the trial of these issues to a jury there was a general verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

1. The issues of fact here presented are sustained on either side by a large array of witnesses. We shall not attempt to review the evidence. So far as the merits of the controversy are concerned, it is sufficient to say there is no such decided or overwhelming preponderance in either direction as would authorize the court to interfere with the finding of a jury thereon. Plaintiff's claim is not without considerable support by corroborating witnesses and admitted circumstances; but, on the other hand, the defendant's denials are positive, and he also is sustained by much corroborating testimony. It was for the jury to determine the truth of the dispute, and the verdict must be accepted as final, unless some fatal error was committed by the court in the conduct of the trial.

2. Of the numerous errors assigned but few are argued by counsel. Of these we may mention the following: The deposition of Bunce, the seller of the land, was taken upon a stipulation of counsel, and both parties appeared and took part in his examination. The deposition was duly certified and filed in the office of the clerk. No objections to the deposition or motion to suppress the same in whole or in part was filed by either party, and it was offered and admitted in evidence on behalf of the defendant. Its admission in evidence is now said to have been erroneous “because the certificate of the notary should have been produced, offered, and read in evidence, and the indorsement of the clerk upon the deposition should have been produced, offered, and read in evidence.” We are wholly unable to appreciate the force of this contention. The only objection made to the deposition when offered was as...