Lucas v. Crippen

• Decision Date: 17 January 1889
• Citation: 41 N.W. 205,76 Iowa 507
• Parties: LUCAS v. CRIPPEN ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

76 Iowa 507

41 N.W. 205

LUCAS

v.CRIPPEN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 17, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Adams county; JOHN W. HARVEY, Judge.

The transaction out of which this action arose was an exchange by plaintiff with defendant R. A. Crippen of certain real estate in the state of California for real estate and personal property in this state. The California property consisted of an undivided two-thirds of 59 lots in the city of Los Angeles, 357 acres of land near Santa Monica, and 1,680 acres in Antelope valley. The Iowa real estate consisted of a large number of lots in the town of Corning, a number of tracts of land in Adams county, and 29 lots in the town of Malvern. The parties were in California at the time of the transaction, and soon afterwards plaintiff removed to this state and took possession of the property obtained by him in the exchange. He now complains that he was deceived by certain false and fraudulent representations made by defendant, during the negotiation, as to the market value of the Iowa property, and other matters material to the transaction. The action is in equity; the prayer of the petition, which is in the alternative, being (1) for the rescission of the contract; and, (2) if rescission cannot be had, for damages. The district court, after a full hearing, dismissed the petition, and plaintiff appealed.J. H. Lucas and H. F. Dale, for appellant.

T. M. Stuart, for appellees.

REED, C. J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

The negotiation which led to the exchange was entered into about the 1st of February, 1886. On the 12th of that month the parties signed a contract by which it was stipulated that one E. J. White, plaintiff's son-in-law, should make a preliminary examination of the Iowa property, and report the result thereof to plaintiff, who reserved the right either to then terminate the negotiation, or to proceed to make a personal examination of the property and determine therefrom whether he would make the trade. It was also stipulated in case he should determine, after receiving White's report, to make a personal examiniation, that the parties should execute the conveyance and assignment necessary to pass the titles, and deposit the same in a bank in Los Angeles, to be delivered or returned as plaintiff might determine after seeing the property. In pursuance of the contract, White went to Corning, and examined the property there, and lands situated in Adams county, except one 80-acre tract, and he telegraphed his report to plaintiff, which was to the effect that all of the property examined by him, except five tracts, was as valuable as represented by Crippen, and that his estimate of the value of those tracts was less by $2,100, in the aggregate, than that placed upon it by Crippen. The report also indicated that while he had not examined the 80-acre tract and the lots in Malvern, his information with reference to them was favorable. It also gave his impression of Corning, and the information acquired by him as to the population of the place, and the standing of Crippen in the community, he having long resided there. When plaintiff received the report, the parties entered into further negotiations, which resulted in an agreement to make the exchange, without any further examination of the property by plaintiff, and they accordingly executed and delivered the conveyances. That agreement was also reduced to writing and signed, as an addenda to the former contract, and is as follows: “Being satisfied to make the trade hereinbefore recited, the parties have agreed to conclude the trade upon the report of E. J. White, the party making the preliminary examination, and have, this 23d day of February, 1886, agreed to exchange deeds and contracts as herein specified, which has been done as above provided, excepting said Crippen conveys an additional eighty acres, to-wit, the N. 1/2, S. W. 1/4, 3 -- 73 -- 34, subject to a mortgage of $550, and interest from March 15, 1886, at six per cent., which has been so conveyed; and it is agreed that this contract remains in force so far as not in conflict with the deeds and assignments, and as a means of interpreting the transaction between the parties.” The burden of plaintiff's complaint is that he was induced to make the trade by the false and fraudulent representations of defendant as to the value of the Iowa property, and as to the population and prospects of the town of Corning, where the most of it is situated, and that the title to some of the property is defective. The claim of fraud is disposed of by two considerations, either of which is sufficient.

1. Plaintiff has failed to establish that he relied upon the alleged...