Leather v. Ross

• Decision Date: 08 June 1888
• Citation: 38 N.W. 516,74 Iowa 630
• Parties: LEATHER ET AL. v. ROSS ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 630

38 N.W. 516

LEATHER ET AL.

v.ROSS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 8, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Hancock county; J. B. McCLELLAND, Judge.

Action in chancery by F. F. Leathers, Dearett Eddy, Milton Eddy, and Lincoln Eddy against James Ross and Moses Ross, involving the title and ownership of 640 acres of land in Hancock county. Decree for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. The facts appear in the opinion.A. C. Ripley and Laughlin & Campbell, for appellants.

Brockway & Elder and E. B. Soper, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The legal title to the land is in plaintiffs. They brought actions to recover possession and quiet their title as against the defendants. The record of titles shows that each of the four plaintiffs is the owner of one-fourth of the land. The four actions were consolidated, and the defendants answered, setting up their equitable claim to all of the lands, and there was but one trial in the court below. The claim made by the defendants is that the plaintiffs, who are brothers, were once the legal and equitable owners of the property, and that, while they were yet minors, Danford Eddy, their father, exchanged and conveyed the land in controversy to the defendants for 240 acres of land in Ringgold county, and caused the said Ringgold county land to be conveyed to the plaintiffs; and that the plaintiffs, knowing that such an exchange was made, and the consideration therefor, accepted the land in Ringgold county, and used, sold, and conveyed the same; and that they are thereby precluded from asserting title to and ownership of the land in controversy, as against the defendants.

There can be no question that, if the claim made by the defendants is shown to be true, the plaintiffs cannot recover the land. If one person assumes to sell and convey the land of another, and the owner, with a knowledge of the facts, receives the consideration, and appropriates it to his own use, he cannot be allowed to question the transaction. See Stroble v. Smith, 8 Watts, 280;Com. v. Shuman's Adm'r, 18 Pa. St. 343; Smith v. Warden, 19 Pa. St. 424; and State v. Stanley, 14 Ind. 409.

Counsel for defendants cite and rely upon these cases, and insist that, under the facts disclosed in evidence, the decree of the circuit court must be sustained. The question to be determined is whether the defendants have made such a showing of facts as will overthrow the legal title; or, in other words, whether the plaintiffs ratified the acts of their father in conveying the land, by receiving and appropriating the consideration therefor, with a full knowledge of the facts attending the transaction. If they did, the transaction touches the conscience, and the plaintiffs ought not to be allowed to hold the land, and the consideration for which it was sold; and, as the cause is here for trial anew upon the evidence, the question must be determined upon the preponderance of the evidence; and, in view of the rule that as the defendants seek to overthrow a plain legal record title, they must, in order to succeed, establish the equity which they assert by clear, satisfactory, and conclusive evidence. There is no question made as to the original ownership of the land. It is the sixteenth section in the township in which it is situated, and was therefore school lands. The evidence shows that it was purchased from the government by Danford Eddy with the money of May Eddy, his wife, and that Danford Eddy caused the patents to the four quarter sections to be issued to their four sons, Dearett Eddy, Milton Eddy, Lincoln Eddy, and Harvey Eddy. Their patents were duly recorded long before the conveyance in question was made. The records of Hancock county, where the land was situated, showed the title to the land to be in the four sons, and their parents had no more right nor authority to divest them of their title than a stranger would have. There is no pretense that the plaintiffs held the title in trust for any purpose. It was a fee-simple, absolute, and indefeasible title. Danford Eddy sold and conveyed the land in September, 1875, and at that time his sons were all minors, aged about 18, 16, 12, and 6 years, respectively. The defendants, James Ross and Moses A. Ross, and their brother, Lorenzo Ross, now deceased, owned a farm in Ringgold county, and the evidence shows that in September, 1875, they exchanged their farm with Danford Eddy for certain wild and uncultivated lands situated in Hancock, Winnebago, and Cerro Gordo counties. The land in controversy was conveyed by Danford Eddy and wife to the defendants in the exchange thus made. The farm in Ringgold county contained 640 acres. The defendants conveyed about 400 acres of the farm to May Eddy, and the remainder, consisting of 240 acres, appears by the record to have been conveyed to one Robert Clarke for a named consideration of $4,000, and is dated on the 20th day of September, 1875. On the 11th day of January, 1876, Robert Clarke and wife conveyed the 240 acres by warranty deed to the plaintiffs for a named consideration of $1,500. It is proper to state here that Danford Eddy, Robert Clarke, and Lorenzo Ross all died before this action was commenced, and the only witness to the actual transaction between the parties to the exchange of the lands was James Ross. His deposition was taken in behalf of the defendants, and was read on the trial in the court below. A motion to exclude all that part of his deposition relating to personal transactions between himself and Danford Eddy was overruled. The motion...