Meylink v. Rhea

• Decision Date: 11 March 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 779,123 Iowa 310
• Parties: HENRY MEYLINK, Appellee, v. DAVID A. RHEA et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

98 N.W. 779

123 Iowa 310

HENRY MEYLINK, Appellee, v. DAVID A. RHEA et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

March 11, 1904

Appeal from Sioux District Court.--HON. WM. HUTCHINSON, Judge.

ACTION in equity to enforce the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate. Decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Struble & Struble for appellants.

Orr & Te Paske for appellee.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.

On March 13, 1902, the defendant, David A. Rhea, was the owner of a farm consisting of one hundred sixty acres situated in Sioux county, this state. At that time, and since, said Rhea with his wife and codefendant, Bessie Rhea, resided in the state of South Dakota. The claim of plaintiff is that on the date named he entered into an oral contract with defendants whereby they sold and agreed to convey to him the said lands in Sioux county at the agreed price of $ 59 per acre; that at the time of such agreement plaintiff paid to defendants in part payment of the consideration for such sale the sum of $ 10 in money. The defendants, in pleading, deny the agreement alleged. As a further defense they say that the agreement alleged, conceding the existence thereof, was made in the state of South Dakota, and that the same was and is void under the statute of frauds of that state.

I. First, then, as to the making of the contract. The defendant David Rhea as a witness admits that he entered into an agreement for sale with plaintiff, and admits that he received the sum of money on account thereof alleged by plaintiff. The defendant Bessie Rhea denies the agreement, and denies knowledge that any money was paid her husband on account of any agreement for sale. We cannot rehearse the testimony bearing upon the question thus made. It will be sufficient to say that the transaction took place at the home of defendants; that both defendants took part in the negotiations; and that the trial court was warranted in finding that Mrs. Rhea, equally with her husband, was desirous of making a sale, the only question of difference being the price to be paid per acre; that she was fully advised of the offer made by plaintiff for the land, and that in the presence of plaintiff she told her husband to go ahead and make the sale on such terms as he thought best. Accepting such to be the facts, it cannot be important that she was not personally present when her husband finally consented to the sale and received the money in part payment of the purchase price. Having authorized her husband to act in the premises, we think she should be bound by his agreement.

II. Finding that a contract was made as alleged, we may now direct our attention to the question of the validity of such contract as affected by the statute of frauds in force in the state of South Dakota. It is the statute of that state that a contract for the sale of real property, or of any interest therein, is invalid unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged. Comp. Laws, S.D. 1897, section 3544. The statute, it will be observed, strikes at the contract itself and it admits of no exception. In both respects it differs from the provisions of our own statute upon the subject. Under...