Slump v. Blain
| Decision Date | 29 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 30713 |
| Citation | 158 N.W. 491,177 Iowa 239 |
| Parties | F. A. SLUMP, Appellee, v. ED. BLAIN et al., Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court--A. B. THORNELL, Judge.
ACTION on a promissory note resulted in a directed verdict and judgment against defendant, from which he appeals.
Affirmed.
Ine D Shuttleworth, and Genung & Genung, for appellants.
Preston & Dillinger, for appellee.
On October 25, 1910, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, by the terms of which the former leased to the latter "the southeast quarter of Section 6 and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 7, in Township 75, Range 38, containing 185 acres, more or less situated in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, for the term of one year commencing on the first day of March, 1911, to end on the first day of March, 1912, at the rental of $ 1,050 to be paid as follows, to wit: $ 525 on the first day of October, 1911, and $ 525 on February 20th, 1912, as evidenced by two promissory notes of second party bearing even date herewith."
Among other conditions, the rent was to be paid at the Citizen's State Bank at Oakland, and it was stipulated that the lessee "hereby agrees to pay as the rent of said premises, for said term, the sum of $ 1,050 in the manner and at the times above specified." Promissory notes were executed accordingly. On December 16, 1911, the lease was extended another year, by endorsing thereon a stipulation in words following:
"By mutual consent, the within lease is hereby extended for the period of one year from March 1st, 1912, on the same terms and conditions as heretofore, new notes for rental having this day been executed by second party herein."
This was signed by the parties and notes executed accordingly, and, on May 5, 1913, another endorsement was made.
"By mutual agreement, this lease is hereby extended for a term of one year from and after March 1st, 1913, on the same terms and conditions as herein contained, new notes having been signed this day."
This also was signed and notes executed. All rent notes were paid in full, except a balance of $ 178.60 on the note of $ 525 becoming due February 20, 1914, and to recover such balance this suit was brought. The defense interposed was that, at the time of and prior to signing the lease, the lessor expressed a doubt as to whether the farm contained 185 acres, and thought it might be an acre or an acre and a half short, and promised that he would have the land surveyed and deduct $ 5.67 for every acre short from the rental stipulated, and that, later in the year and before the rent was paid, he agreed the same as before, and again upon each extension of the lease. The two theories of the defense, as pleaded, are: (1) That each of these oral agreements was additional to that in writing, the contract being partly written and partly in parol, and that, as so resting, it was extended each time; and (2) that the representations with respect to there being about 185 acres, and promises of survey, constituted a fraud on defendant.
I. The evidence cannot be said to sustain either theory. Though plaintiff may have been aware of a shortage, he was not shown to have known of any greater amount than disclosed to defendant. Moreover, defendant, with the help of one Smiley in the fall of 1911 and prior to the payment of any rent, undertook to measure the land by use of barn bats nailed together so as to be about 33 feet long, and, as they testified, there was a shortage of nearly 12 acres. With such knowledge, he paid the rent notes of the first year without objection, and executed the two extension agreements. He could not, then, have relied on any representation that there were 185 acres of land, or an acre...
To continue reading
Request your trial