Lee v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 26 January 1894 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 613,90 Iowa 695 |
| Parties | JAMES A. LEE, Appellee, v. WM. RICHMOND et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cass District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.
ACTION in equity for the cancellation of a conveyance of real estate. There was a hearing on the merits, and a decree in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Geo. A Holmes and L. L. De Lano for appellants.
J. F Smith for appellee.
The defendants, William Richmond and George W. Fulton, for some years carried on a commercial business at Council Bluffs under the name of the Boston Tea Company. James T. Lee, a son of the plaintiff, was employed by them as clerk for about three years. In July, 1888, and while he was so employed, the defendants caused him to be arrested on a preliminary information which charged him with the crime of embezzlement. While he was under arrest, and before the examination was held, he had an interview with Richmond, in which he admitted that he was guilty of the offense charged, but expressed a desire to settle the matter, and agreed to telegraph to his father, who resided at Keokuk, to come to Council Bluffs. On the next day, Saturday, July 14, he learned that his father could not come, and informed Richmond of the fact. On Sunday the defendants visited him at his home, and spent several hours there. On the same day, Richmond, James T. Lee, and his wife started for the home of the plaintiff, where they arrived Monday. An interview was there had, at which the plaintiff and his wife, the son and his wife, and Richmond were present during all or a part of the time. It resulted in the execution by the plaintiff and his wife to Richmond of a deed for three lots in the town of Atlantic for the specified consideration of two thousand dollars. The deed was given to Richmond, and was recorded in the office of the recorder of Cass county. The plaintiff asks that the deed be canceled, and for general equitable relief. The district court decreed the deed to be void, and that the title to the lots was vested in the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleges that the deed was executed in consequence of the representations of Richmond, for himself and Fulton that James T. Lee had embezzled a large sum of money; that they had filed an information against him, in which he was charged with the embezzlement of money and goods to the value of five thousand dollars; that the embezzlement had been confessed by him; that the defendants were his friends, and that for the sum of three thousand dollars they would dismiss the information, and restore him to his employment, and he would have no further trouble; that, if the sum of three thousand dollars was not paid at once, the prosecution would be carried on, and he would be sent to the penitentiary. The plaintiff further claims that at that time he and his wife, who is the mother of James T. Lee, were old and feeble; that he was sick; that both were much disturbed and frightened by what was said to them, and not knowing the facts, and having no knowledge of such matters, they believed what Richmond said to them; that, when the deed was executed, Richmond agreed to submit it to Fulton, and, if it was not satisfactory to him, to return it to plaintiff, but that, if it was satisfactory, the criminal prosecution of his son would be dropped and ended. Some of these claims are denied by the defendants, but the preponderance of the evidence shows the following facts: Until James T. Lee and...
To continue reading
Request your trial