O'Neill v. Wilcox
| Decision Date | 21 October 1901 |
| Citation | 87 N.W. 742,115 Iowa 15 |
| Parties | O'NEILL v. WILCOX. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Johnson county; M. J. Wade, Judge.
Plaintiff claims to have purchased of defendant Wilcox three lots in the town of Oxford, for which he has never received a deed. The prayer of the petition is that a deed be ordered made by Wilcox, and that plaintiff's title be quieted against Rohret, who also claims title to said lots by purchase from Wilcox, made subsequent to plaintiff's contract. There was a trial of the issues between plaintiff and Rohret, which resulted in a decree in the former's favor. Rohret appeals. Affirmed.Ranck & Bradley, for appellant.
Baker & Ball, for appellee.
Wilcox died before trial, and no substitution was made. In this state of the record the issue between plaintiff and Rohret was tried. This was proper, for one who has an equitable title only may maintain an action to quiet it. Code, § 4223; Rankin v. Miller, 43 Iowa, 11.
2. The evidence offered on behalf of plaintiff tended to show that he purchased the lots in question through one J. W. Wilson, who it is claimed was an agent of Wilcox. Wilson was introduced as a witness, and testified to his authority, and to the fact that his compensation was 10 per cent. on the amount of the sales. Objection was made to this testimony, under section 4604 of the Code, on the ground that Wilson, being interested in the result of the action, could not testify to any personal transaction with Wilcox, deceased. It does not appear that he has any interest in the result of this action. So far as is disclosed, he may have been paid his commission at the time of the sale, and, if so, any claim to recover it back would be barred by limitation. Aside from this statute, Wilson's testimony was competent to establish his agency. O'Leary v. Insurance Co., 100 Iowa, 390, 69 N. W. 686. We think it sufficient to say, without detailing the facts given in evidence, that the trial court was justified in finding that Wilson had authority as agent to make the sale to plaintiff.
3. As one source of Wilson's authority, plaintiff pleaded that the sale to him was authorized by one Augusta Wilcox, who held a power of attorney from C. S. Wilcox and wife which empowered her to make the sale. On this branch of the case the record of this instrument was offered in evidence. Objection was made that it was not the best evidence; that the original should have been produced, or a showing made that it was not obtainable by plaintiff. Whatever merit there may be in this objection is rendered nugatory by the fact that the other evidence of Wilson's agency was sufficient to establish such relation.
4. Plaintiff went into possession of the property when he purchased, and was holding such...
To continue reading
Request your trial