Stelpflug v. Wolfe
| Decision Date | 05 April 1905 |
| Citation | 102 N.W. 1130,127 Iowa 192 |
| Parties | NICK STELPFLUG, Appellant, v. P. R. WOLFE and KATE WOLFE, Defendants and Appellees WM. J HARTMAN and GEORGE H. JACKSON, Interveners v. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pocahontas District Court.--HON. W. B. QUARTON, Judge.
THIS action was originally brought at law to replevin certain furniture and fixtures used by the defendants Wolfe and wife in conducting a hotel as tenants of the plaintiff. The interveners. Hartman and Jackson, claimed title to the property under a written contract with plaintiff, conveying to them the hotel premises in exchange for other property and asked that the written contract be so reformed in equity as to cover the furniture and fixtures on the hotel premises. The case was transferred to the equity docket; and on a trial the court reformed the instrument so as to cover the furniture and fixtures. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Heald & Ralston, for appellant.
John A Senniff and Wm. Hazlett, for appellees.
Counsel for appellant now argue that the pleadings did not justify the granting of equitable relief to the interveners as against plaintiff. But the case was tried throughout on the theory that the right of interveners to equitable relief was the sole question in the case, and it is too late to raise any technical objection to the sufficiency of the pleadings. Enix v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 114 Iowa 508, 87 N.W 417; Hough v. Gearsen, 110 Iowa 240, 81 N.W. 463; Lacy v. Kossuth County, 106 Iowa 16, 75 N.W. 689.
The contract of plaintiff relied on by interveners, transferred to them "the hotel property and lot now owned by" plaintiff "at the agreed consideration of $ 2,500 subject to a mortgage of $ 600"; and the sole controversy in this case is whether, conceding that this description conveys the real property only, and not the furniture and fixtures used in conducting the hotel, it was the intention of the parties that the furniture and fixtures should pass to the interveners under the contract. We have examined the evidence, and have reached the conclusion that it clearly and satisfactorily establishes the contention of interveners. Counsel for appellant urge that the evidence does not make out a case of fraud, accident, or mistake such as to entitle interveners to relief in equity. But in this State it is well settled that equity will grant relief for the purpose of making the legal effect of the instrument correspond to the express...
To continue reading
Request your trial