Mitchell v. Mutch
| Decision Date | 24 September 1917 |
| Citation | 164 N.W. 212,180 Iowa 1281 |
| Parties | E. M. MITCHELL, Appellee, v. JAMES MUTCH et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Tama District Court.--J. W. WILLETT, Judge.
SUIT for specific performance of a contract to sell real estate. Decree for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
E. H Lundy, Dean W. Peisen, and Williamson & Willoughby, for appellants.
Sherman W. DeWolf, Thomas & Thomas, and Clarence Nichols, for appellee.
I.
James and Mary Mutch, husband and wife, on April 28, 1913, made a written contract with E. M. Mitchell, in consideration of $ 57,600, to be paid, $ 600 in cash, $ 5,000 March 1, 1914, the balance in 10 years at 5 per cent interest, to sell and convey to him the south half of Section 3, Township 86, Range 15, Tama County, Iowa. The contract, as originally written did not require the purchaser to secure the payment of the $ 52,000, but, on June 11th following, a stipulation was written on the contract, signed by the purchaser, and by the grantors by their attorney, by which the same was to be secured by mortgage on the premises. Upon the refusal of the grantors to carry out the deal, on April 17, 1914, the petition of plaintiff praying for specific performance of the terms of the contract was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Tama County. In the meantime, Elizabeth Mutch had been appointed temporary guardian of James Mutch.
The defenses urged upon behalf of defendants were, in substance: (a) That the consideration to be paid for said premises was inadequate; (b) that James Mutch was at the time a person of unsound mind, and that he and his wife are greatly distressed over the sale of said premises and the possibility of being compelled to turn the same over to others; (c) that appellee and others conspired together to procure the conveyance of said real estate, by representing to James and Mary Mutch that the land at $ 200 per acre was too high, and that same was not worth that sum; and that by their conduct and representations they overreached the old gentleman and caused him to execute the contract in question.
It appears from the evidence that James Mutch was born in Scotland, went to Tama County many years ago, and has accumulated a fortune of about $ 250,000, owns 760 acres of land in the vicinity of the above described premises, including the land in controversy, and has been an active, hard-working, successful farmer. His family consists of three daughters and three sons, all of whom were, at the time of the transaction in question, absent from his home, except Elizabeth, who is unmarried.
The land in question is apparently well located, in a good state of cultivation, and well tiled and drained. The improvements thereon, however, are run down to some extent, and the residence is small, old and in bad condition. Witnesses testify that the farm has not been as well kept up and cared for recently as in former years.
Numerous witnesses, including two physicians, testified regarding the mental condition of James Mutch. From the testimony of the physicians, it may be inferred that he has for some time been to some extent afflicted with senile dementia and arteriosclerosis, and that his general physical condition was not good. One of the physicians testified to having waited upon him during a period of illness. They both express the opinion that he was not competent to form an intelligent opinion and rationally transact business of an important character.
He was, at the time of the execution of the contract, 82 years of age, and during the period of his residence in Tama County had been known for certain eccentricities and peculiarities of person and habit. It is claimed that these have become more noticeable during the last few years. Various witnesses testified that at times he would, while on the streets in town, sing. This, however, he had done always. Further evidence shows that he declared his family was against him, that he was a poor man, and that he intended to go away; that, on several occasions, he did go a short distance, sometimes remaining over night; that, on one occasion, he purchased a railway ticket to Chicago, saying he was going to Scotland, and that at the time he was not seasonably clothed, had no baggage with him, and was untidy, but he was persuaded not to go; that the marshal of Reinbeck found him late at night lying in the doorway of a business house, sleeping; that he was several times found lying on the ground sleeping, on his premises; that on one occasion he covered himself up with hay in the barn, and was with great difficulty induced to return to the house; that friends in an automobile overtook him on one occasion when he had started away, and returned him to town; that he had land in Canada and said he was going there; that he, in later years, became fretful and fault-finding, and appeared to be obsessed with the idea that his family was against him; and there were several instances of like character, indicating that he had grown more untidy, forgetful and eccentric than in former years.
The evidence of claimed improvident dealing upon his part consists of the sale of a horse for $ 100, claimed to have been worth $ 150 to $ 160, and of the sale of a few bushels of timothy seed for $ 1 per bushel which was worth $ 5 per bushel, and the sale of the land in question for $ 180 per acre upon a payment of $ 5,600, with 10 years' time on deferred payments at 5 per cent interest. As is usual in cases of this character, there was considerable diversity of opinion among witnesses as to the fair market value of the land, those called on behalf of plaintiff placing same at from $ 175 to $ 180, whereas defendant's witnesses placed the same at from $ 200 to $ 215, cash.
The evidence regarding the transaction culminating in the execution of the contract, the indorsement thereon of June 11th, and the deed, as the same appears in the record, is, in substance, as follows: In 1911, defendant listed the land with E. E. Taylor, a newspaper and real estate man of Traer, for sale, and same was advertised for sale in circular form and in the Traer Clipper; that an offer of $ 175 per acre was made for the land and refused by Mr. Mutch; that an offer was made, about the time the contract was consummated, to buy the land for $ 175 per acre, but defendant clung tenaciously to his price of $ 180 per acre; that, on the day of the sale, one of the parties whose conduct is complained of went in the forenoon and saw defendant in an effort to purchase the land at $ 175. This he was unable to do, and, in the afternoon, the several parties, knowing that Mr. Mutch was going or had gone to Reinbeck, went to said place in an automobile and arrived there in advance of Mr. Mutch. He and some of the parties went to the bank; appellee was called in; the deal was talked over; the contract and deed were executed, and arrangements made by which some of the parties went with James Mutch to his home, where Mary Mutch, his wife, signed the deed; and the same was returned to the bank, where it was kept with the contract.
The record fails to disclose any fraudulent representations or conduct on the part of anyone at the bank. The contract was written by one of the officers, and there appears to have been but little conversation between the several persons present. The terms upon which the land was listed with the agent for sale included a cash payment of $ 10,000, but appellee at the time stated that, before he moved upon the farm, he would have to build a modern house, which would cost him about $ 5,000, and he would pay $ 5,600 cash, which would, in a way, be equivalent to paying $ 10,000. The terms finally agreed upon were, as stated before, $ 600 cash, $ 5,000 March 1, 1914, at which time possession was to be given to appellee, and the balance in 10 years, with interest at 5 per cent, with certain optional payments. Some time afterwards, Elizabeth discovered that the contract did not require the purchaser to secure the payment of the $ 52,000, whereupon she and her father consulted a lawyer at Toledo, who took the matter up with the purchaser, as the result of which a stipulation was written on the back of the contract and signed by the purchaser and by the attorney for the grantors, by which the purchaser agreed to execute a mortgage upon the premises to secure the deferred payment. The attorney who investigated the matter was called as a witness, and testified that he called his clients' attention to the stipulation, and that they were satisfied therewith, and that he, at their direction, returned the contract to the bank where it was originally left.
The circumstances relied upon by appellant as offering evidence of conspiracy and fraud are that the parties charged with bad faith watched Mr. Mutch pass Taylor's to town, and themselves took a different road to avoid passing him; that they met him upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial