Schultz v. Lidtka
| Decision Date | 13 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 31266.,31266. |
| Citation | 179 Iowa 652,161 N.W. 682 |
| Parties | SCHULTZ v. LIDTKA ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Poweshiek County; Henry Silwold, Judge.
Action in equity to reform a written lease, and for general equitable relief. There was a trial upon the merits and a decree dismissing plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Bray, Shifflett & Wilkie, of Grinnell, for appellant.
Boyd & Boyd, of Malcolm, for appellees.
By the lease executed in duplicate on October 6, 1913, plaintiff leased to defendants 80 acres of land from March 1, 1914, until the death of plaintiff, at an annual cash rental. And the lease further provided that plaintiff is to have her board and a room in the house on the premises, without charge, until the end of the lease, unless sooner terminated; that defendants were to preserve and keep the fruit and ornamental trees from injury by plowing, or from cattle, horses, sheep, or otherwise; that defendants were not to permit any willful or voluntary waste, spoil, or destruction in or upon said premises. It further provided that after March 1, 1920, either party to the agreement may terminate the lease by giving written notice. Second party further agreed that, if they failed to keep and perform all the covenants, plaintiff might declare the lease void upon giving 30 days' notice and could re-enter the premises.
The petition alleges that, contrary to the real contract entered into, and by oversight on the part of the scrivener, there was omitted from the writing that part of the agreement, as plaintiff alleges, that defendants were to furnish plaintiff a comfortable home; that defendants were to treat plaintiff with kindness; that the defendants were to keep a horse and colt for plaintiff, or buy a driving horse and keep the same for her use; and that defendants were to deliver to plaintiff one-half of the young chickens and one-half of the eggs produced by the chickens which were owned or kept by plaintiff on the premises. It is then alleged that defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the contract as she claims it to be, and that defendants have committed willful and voluntary waste by keeping hogs in the horse barn, by permitting hogs to destroy the fruit trees, and by cutting down certain of the shade trees on the premises; that defendants have not treated her kindly, so that she has been compelled to procure board and room for herself elsewhere. The petition also alleges that plaintiff is of German birth, and that she is not entirely familiar with the English language, and that she did not understand that the part of the agreement alleged to have been omitted was not in the writing. She further alleges that the consideration expressed in the written lease is inadequate, and that it would be inequitable to continue said contract in force when plaintiff is deprived of her said home, board, and care.
Defendants allege that the writing expresses the real contract between the parties, and deny that there was any oversight or mistake; allege that they have complied with their part of the contract; deny allegations as to waste.
No 30 days' notice has ever been given by plaintiff, as provided in the contract. Plaintiff is 63 years of age, but has been in America 61 years. The questions presented are almost entirely of fact.
It should have been stated that plaintiff claims that the principal consideration for the lease was the part alleged to have been omitted. The prayer of the petition also asked that the lease be canceled, and the argument on this last proposition is that, if appellees failed to perform their part of the contract, plaintiff had the right to declare the lease void. But this was upon giving notice, which was not given.
There are some minor matters presented, but the principal point in the case is whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a reformation of the lease. The defendants allege and testify that the lease as drawn expresses the real agreement made between the parties. Appellant does not dispute appellees' legal propositions that the evidence to justify a reformation must be clear, satisfactory, and free from a reasonable doubt, and that there must be mutual mistake, or that there is such a mistake in the drafting of the writing as that it does not express the meaning or intent of the parties. Appellees cite, among other cases, Pyne v. Knight, 130 Iowa, 115, 106 N. W. 505;Day v. Dyer, 171 Iowa, 437, at 450, 152 N. W. 53;Breja v. Pryne, 94 Iowa, 757, 64 N. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial