Mankin v. Mankin

• Decision Date: 25 May 1894
• Parties: S. E. MANKIN v. JOSEPH MANKIN et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

59 N.W. 292

91 Iowa 406

S. E. MANKIN v. JOSEPH MANKIN et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 25, 1894

Appeal from Montgomery District Court.--HON. A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

THIS is a suit in equity, and it involves the title to forty acres of land. There was a decree for the plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

F.P Greenlee and Smith McPherson for appellants.

C.E Richards and J. M. Junkin for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

I.

It appears from the evidence, that the plaintiff was at one time the wife of the defendant L. D. Mankin. They resided together on a farm of eighty acres, the title to which was in the husband. Their married life was unhappy. The husband was guilty of cruelty to his wife, and he was inclined to be unfaithful to his marriage vows. His conduct led to a temporary separation, which was adjusted, and the parties resumed their marriage relations. As part of the compromise of their domestic difficulties, the husband conveyed forty acres of the farm to the plaintiff. The relations of the parties did not long continue to be harmonious, and on the second day of March, 1889, they joined in a conveyance of the whole farm to Joseph W. Mankin, the father of L. D. Mankin, for a cash consideration of two thousand, four hundred dollars. Joseph W. Mankin was a resident of the state of Illinois. The defendant John Mankin is a brother of L. D. Mankin, and he came on to the residence of the other parties, as a representative of his father, to effect the transfer of the land. The plaintiff claims that she was unwilling to sell her land, but that she was induced to make the sale and conveyance by the grossest fraudulent representations and deception practiced upon her by her husband and said John Mankin. We will not set out the evidence, but we think the court rightly found that the deed was procured from the plaintiff by deception and villainy. The upshot of the matter was, that the husband obtained possession of all the money from the sale of the farm, as well as from the sale of the personal property on the farm, and left for the state of Kansas with the plaintiff, pretending that he would purchase a home and reside in that state. Upon his arrival in Kansas, he falsely charged the plaintiff with stealing the money from his pocket, and deserted her, and never returned.

There is no real or even doubtful question of law in the case. John Mankin, the agent of Joseph W. Mankin, was an active participant in the fraud. If it had not been for his artful deceit, it is not probable that plaintiff would have made the conveyance. Joseph W. Mankin was bound by the acts of his agent, John Mankin, the same as if he had notice of the fraud. Jones v. Bamford, 21 Iowa 217; Crumb v Davis, 54 Iowa 25, 6 N.W. 53; Smith v. Dunton, 42 Iowa 48; Sowler v. Day, 58 Iowa 252, 12...