Sisson v. Kaper

• Decision Date: 20 May 1898
• Citation: 75 N.W. 490,105 Iowa 599
• Parties: PERRY SISSON, Appellant, v. JACOB KAPER, et al
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

75 N.W. 490

105 Iowa 599

PERRY SISSON, Appellant, v. JACOB KAPER, et al

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 20, 1898

Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON. WILLIAM G. THOMPSON, Judge.

ACTION at law to recover rent alleged to be due for leased premises and for damages. The defendants pleaded a counterclaim. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Giffen & Voris for appellant.

Richard A. Stuart for appellees.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

In October, 1891, the plaintiff and the defendant Jacob Kaper entered into an agreement in writing, by which the former leased to the latter, for the term of three years from and after the first day of March, 1892, a certain farm, at an annual rent of three hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents. The defendant Kula signed the lease as surety for Kaper. The plaintiff seeks to recover fourteen dollars for rent due, and two hundred and twenty-one dollars for damages alleged to have been caused to buildings trees, and fences, for subletting the premises, and for failing to perform certain labor as required by the lease. The defendants admit that fourteen dollars of the last year's rent have not been paid according to the terms of the lease, and deny the alleged breaches of contract and responsibility for the alleged damages. They aver, by way of counterclaim, that the plaintiff, for the purpose of inducing Kaper to accept a lease of the farm, falsely stated to him that there was an abundant supply of water on it, sufficient for all house uses and for stock purposes; that the statement was false, and known to the plaintiff, when he made it, to be false, but that Kaper believed it to be true, and relied upon it in taking a lease of the premises; that the supply of water proved to be wholly inadequate, and, in consequence some of the stock of Kaper died, and milk cows were injured, and their capacity to give milk impaired, all to the damage of Kaper in the sum of one thousand dollars, and for that sum he demands judgment against the plaintiff. The verdict and judgment were for the sum of one hundred dollars, exclusive of costs.

I. The appellant complains of the rulings of the court which permitted the defendants to introduce evidence in support of their claim that the plaintiff had made false representations respecting the supply of water on the farm, on the ground that a reformation of the lease is not asked, and that the evidence in question tended to contradict a contemporaneous written agreement. The rule which the appellant thus seeks to invoke does not apply for the reason that the counterclaim is not based upon the written lease, but upon alleged fraud, which caused Kaper to accept it; and the evidence objected to was competent, as tending to establish the fraudulent representations pleaded. Humbert v. Larson, 99 Iowa 275, 68 N.W. 703; 1 Greenleaf Evidence, section 284; Bradner Evidence, 143, 208.

II. The defendants pleaded and submitted evidence which tended to show that, upon complaint being made to the plaintiff of the lack of water and of the need for it, he agreed to furnish water, and made some attempts to do so. The plaintiff objected to the evidence, and now complains of it, on the ground that the agreement was made after the lease was entered into, and therefore was without consideration. It is sufficient to say, in answer to this objection, that if Kaper was induced to sign the lease, and take possession of the farm thereunder, through fraud on the part of the plaintiff, he had the right to rescind the contract of lease within a reasonable time after discovering the fraud, and to abandon the farm; and there was evidence which tended to show that it was to prevent his doing so that the plaintiff made the subsequent verbal agreement to furnish water, and the waiver by the lessee of his right to rescind and his continued occupation of the premises under the lease would have furnished sufficient consideration for the verbal agreement in question.

III. There was testimony in behalf of the plaintiff which, if true, would have entitled him to recover damages to a considerable amount in addition to the fourteen dollars of the rent provided for by the lease which had not been paid. The evidence on the part of the defendants showed that the supply of water on the...