Myers v. Munson
| Decision Date | 12 December 1884 |
| Citation | 21 N.W. 759,65 Iowa 423 |
| Parties | MYERS v. MUNSON |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.
ACTION for the breach of a covenant of warranty in a deed. There was a trial to the court, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
REVERSED.
Lake & Harmon and C. E. Ransier, for appellant.
E. E Hasner, for appellee.
The premises in question consisted of improved property in the city of Independence. They were sold and conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff by deed with full covenants, and afterwards they were sold and conveyed by like deed by the plaintiff to one McGowen. At the time of the conveyances there was a perpetual easement existing upon the property in favor of the lot adjacent thereto on the east, to-wit, the right on the part of the owner of such lot to the use and maintenance of a stair-way, hall-way, etc. McGowen, in an action against the present plaintiff for breach of covenant recovered $ 500, which the plaintiff has paid. The present defendant was notified of the action, and requested to defend. The present action was brought to recover the sum of $ 500 and interest, and the costs and expenses incurred and paid by this plaintiff in the action brought against him by McGowen.
I. The conveyance to the defendant was made by one Hageman, the owner of the lot adjacent on the east. The easement was created by reservation in the deed from Hageman to the defendant. At the time of the execution of the deed, the parties entered into a contract whereby Hageman agreed to be at one-half the expense of erecting the stairs and keeping them in repair. When the defendant conveyed to the plaintiff, he assigned this contract to him, so as to give him the same rights, under the contract against Hageman, as he had himself possessed. Having thus put the plaintiff into a position to call upon Hageman to assist in maintaining the stairs, he seems to have conceived the idea that he might safely enough execute to him a deed with full covenants, and not incur any liability by reason of the stairway, hall-way, etc. Possibly there was a verbal understanding that the defendant should not incur such liability. At all events, he set up in his answer the assignment of the contract, and averred that the assignment was a part of the same transaction in which the deed was made, and that it was verbally agreed that the assignment should be a full settlement of any damages arising by reason of the covenant against the easement. He also averred, in substance, that it was verbally agreed that the easement, in consideration of the assignment, should be excepted from the covenant. The plaintiff demurred to so much of the answer as set up by these defenses, and the demurrer was sustained. The defendant assigns the ruling of the court upon the demurrer as error.
Where two papers are executed as parts of the same transaction, it may be conceded that they should be read together, and construed together, and it may be that, if, when taken together, they do not show upon their face that they were parts of the same transaction, such fact may be shown by parol. But, when the two papers are thus connected, they must speak for themselves. It is not proper to go further, and contravene the papers by parol evidence, as the defendant would be obliged to do in order to make the defense upon which he relies. The deed contains an unlimited covenant against incumbrances, and there is nothing in the contract or assignment of the contract which tends to show otherwise. Reading the deed and assignment of the contract together as parts of the same transaction, the most that we could infer is that they were supported by the same consideration. The plaintiff would appear to be entitled to both papers, with all that they contain. The defendant is not aided, unless he can go much further than to connect the two papers. He needs to go outside of them and ingraft by parol an exception upon the covenant against incumbrances. This he cannot be allowed to do, nor can he be allowed to do what is substantially the same thing; and that is, to show that the damages arising from the breach of the covenant were settled and discharged by the assignment, if it be true, as averred that the assignment and deed were parts of the same transaction. Parties cannot be supposed to enter into a contract which gives an immediate right to damages, and in the same contract to settle and discharge the damages.
We do not forget that the question under consideration arose upon demurrer, and that all facts well pleaded are regarded as admitted. But the written agreement of the parties is conclusively presumed to be the final agreement, and any parol agreement inconsistent therewith to have been waived. Barhydt v. Bonney, 55 Iowa 717, 8 N.W. 672. It may not be improper to add that we think that the defendant's position must have been taken somewhat with reference to the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Unitarian Society of Iowa City v. Citizens Sav. & Trust Co., Iowa City
...was an easement and an incumbrance and that defendant was liable on his covenants. The same rule was also announced in Myers v. Munson, 65 Iowa 423, 21 N.W. 759. cases are authority for several propositions in the case. The first is that parol evidence is not admissible to show that the par......
-
Schurger v. Moorman
... ... 1, 112 Am. St. 811, 88 S.W. 933, 4 L ... R. A., N. S., 309; McCall v. Wilkes, 121 Ga. 722, 49 ... S.E. 722; Teague v. Whaley, supra; Myers v. Munson, ... 65 Ia. 423, 21 N.W. 759; Medler v. Hiatt, 8 Ind. 171.) ... The ... appellant had the right to a tender of a deed ... ...
-
Chicago, Mobile Development Co. v. G. C. Coggin Co.
...Covenants, § 150, p. 1030, note 84. The cases noted are directly in point. Smith v. Nussbaum, Mo. App., 71 S.W.2d 82, 87; Myers v. Munson, 65 Iowa 423, 21 N.W. 759; see, 61 A.L.R. 167 et The decree declared (4) that complainant is entitled to redeem by paying to the respondent (this appella......
-
First Unitarian Soc'y of Iowa City v. Citizens' Sav. & Trust Co.
...was an easement and an incumbrance and that defendant was liable on his covenants. The same rule was also announcedin Myers v. Munson, 65 Iowa, 423, 21 N. W. 759. These cases are authority for several propositions in the case. The first is that parol evidence is not admissible to show that ......