Reiger v. Turley

• Decision Date: 09 June 1911
• Citation: 131 N.W. 866,151 Iowa 491
• Parties: REIGER (REIGER, INTERVENER) v. TURLEY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

151 Iowa 491

131 N.W. 866

REIGER (REIGER, INTERVENER)

v.TURLEY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 9, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Delaware County; C. E. Ransier, Judge.

The opinion states the case. Affirmed.

E. E. Hasner, for appellant.

Yoran & Yoran and E. M. Carr, for appellees.

WEAVER, J.

On September 10, 1907, the defendant, J. W. Turley, and the plaintiff, F. J. Reiger entered into a written contract, by which defendant sold to said plaintiff a farm of 120 acres at the agreed price of $9,700, to be paid $1,500 on the execution of the writing, $500 on March 1, 1908, and the remainder, or $7,700, on March 1, 1913; the deferred payments to be evidenced by promissory notes bearing interest at 5 per cent. payable annually. Possession was to be given and the abstract of title furnished on March 1, 1908. Time was declared to be the essence of the contract, and default in performance of any of its stipulations was to render the agreement void and to work a forfeiture of payments made. The installment of $1,500 was duly paid. In February, 1908, before any default had been made in the performance of the contract, plaintiff became apprehensive that he might not be able to meet the payment of $500 which was to fall due on the first of the following month, and so reported to the defendant. Thereupon, under date of February 25, 1908, a new writing was executed in the nature of a lease of the land from defendant to plaintiff for the period of one year, in consideration of which plaintiff undertook to pay all taxes and assessments accruing upon the property, together with a cash rental of $410, which will be observed is the equivalent of 5 per cent. on the unpaid remainder of the selling price of the land as fixed in the first contract. Said writing also contained provisions as follows: “It is expressly agreed that the party of the second part shall make all repairs to the fences and other improvements that may be put upon said premises at his own expense. It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto that the party of the second part shall have the privilege at the end of the one-year term provided for in this lease and agreement of purchasing the above-described premises for the agreed purchase price of eight thousand two hundred dollars, five hundred of the same to be paid in cash, and a first mortgage executed by second party for seven thousand seven hundred dollars, providing the rent herein agreed to be paid shall then be fully paid and the party of the first part hereby agrees to execute a warranty deed at the expiration of the said one-year term conveying said premises to the said party of the second part, or to such person as shall be named in writing by the party of the second part, upon the payment to first party of the said agreed purchase price of eight thousand two hundred dollars together with all rents provided for in this lease. It is further agreed that, in case the second party fails to pay the rent as herein provided within ten days after the same becomes due, or fails to pay all taxes assessed against said premises before the same becomes delinquent, or fails to comply with any of the conditions of the lease and agreement on his part to be kept and performed, then and in any of such events this lease and agreement may at the option of the first party be terminated by giving thirty days' notice in writing to quit possession of said premises, and the first party shall upon the termination of such thirty days' notice be entitled to take immediate possession of said premises without process of law, using such force as may be necessary to put said parties in full possession and enjoyment of said premises at the option of said party of the first part. It is expressly agreed that he may bring action of forcible entry and detainer for the possession of said premises, it being expressly understood and agreed that any failure in the respects mentioned on the part of the second party shall cause all his rights of every kind and nature in and to said premises to at once terminate. It is expressly agreed and understood that all prior agreements and understanding by and between the second party hereto and the first party hereto or their grantor shall be and are hereby expressly rescinded and canceled.”

On March 1, 1909, the parties entered into another or third written agreement, in the form of a contract of lease of the same premises for the future period of one year, on substantially the same terms as were contained in the contract for the preceding year, except the omission of all reference to a contract or option for the purchase of the land. The stipulated rent and taxes were paid in full each year. On March 12, 1910, plaintiff instituted this action, setting up the original contract of purchase, and alleging that in February, 1908, and before any default in the performance of the contract on his part, he entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff for one year's extension of the time for payment of the installment of $500; that defendant, under false and fraudulent pretense that to give effect to such agreement for extension of time it was necessary to execute another writing, prepared and requested the plaintiff to sign the second instrument above mentioned; and that plaintiff, being ignorant and inexperienced, and not understanding the legal effect of such writing, and believing it was the proper method or form for preserving his right under the extended contract of purchase, complied with defendant's request and signed it. He further alleges that, at or before the end of said extended time for payment, the parties orally agreed upon a further extension of payment for the period of one year, and, being induced thereto on the like false and fraudulent representations made by defendant as on the former occasion, he signed the last written agreement not knowing that it omitted all reference to said contract of purchase and not understanding that it operated in any manner to destroy his right to complete said purchase at the price originally stipulated. He further alleges that, before the expiration of the time mentioned in the last written contract, he tendered to defendant full payment of said installment of $500 and declared to defendant his ability and readiness to perform all the agreements and stipulations of said contract of purchase on his part; but defendant refused to accept the same and refused to make a deed of conveyance to plaintiff, stating and offering no reason or ground for such refusal except a demand that plaintiff make a payment of $1,500, instead of the sum of $500, as provided in the agreement. Upon this showing plaintiff prays a reformation of the two written agreements last made, demands a specific performance of the contract to convey, and a recovery of damages in the sum of $5,000, and such other and further relief as may appear to the court as just and equitable. To this petition the defendant answers admitting the making and execution of the several writings mentioned, and denying all allegations of fraud and wrong on his part. He further denies that said two writings last mentioned in any manner fail to express the true agreement between him and plaintiff. He admits that in December, 1909, plaintiff offered to make or complete the purchase of the land for the sum mentioned in the original agreement, and that he refused to convey except for an increased price and upon new conditions; the former contract having, according to his contention, been wholly abandoned. He further alleges that plaintiff's action is not brought in good faith, and that he is wholly insolvent and is holding possession of said land without right after the expiration of his lease. In conclusion he prays that plaintiff's petition be dismissed, that his own title be quieted against the claims set forth in the petition, and that he have a mandatory writ for delivery to him of the possession of the premises in controversy.

After issue was thus joined, the wife of the plaintiff came into the case by petition of intervention, setting up homestead rights in the premises; but, as the disposition of this appeal in no manner depends upon the claim thus asserted, we shall give this feature of this case no further attention. After the close of the testimony, plaintiff was permitted, over defendant's objection, to amend his petition asking, in case he be denied a reformation of the written contracts, and the court in its discretion refuses to decree specific performance of the contract of purchase, that he then have judgment against the defendant for the return to him of the advance payment of $1,500 with interest. After hearing the evidence offered and the argument of counsel, the trial court entered its decree finding that plaintiff had not made a case for reformation of the written agreements, but held that, the contract of purchase having been rescinded by the parties, defendant was not entitled to retain the advance payment of $1,500, and gave the plaintiff the option to take a money judgment for said sum with interest from the date of such rescission. Plaintiff having signified his election to take such judgment, the court further decreed that his prayer for specific performance be denied, and that he have no further right, title, or interest in the premises, and that defendant be awarded a writ, as prayed, for the possession of the land. From this decree the defendant appeals.

[1] I. It is first argued that the action having been brought in equity, and equitable relief being denied, the court was without authority or jurisdiction to render judgment for the return of the advance payment. This position we think is not tenable. The objection that a party is seeking a legal remedy under the forms of an action in equity or is demanding equitable relief upon a claim which is properly cognizable in an action at law does not go to the jurisdiction of the court, nor does it afford good ground...