Throckmorton v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 22 April 1886 |
| Citation | 68 Iowa 643,27 N.W. 794 |
| Parties | THROCKMORTON v. DAVIDSON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Jasper district court.
Action in chancery to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. There was a decree granting the relief prayed for by plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Winslow & Varnum and J. Kipp & Son, for appellant, Margaret J. Davidson.
Alanson Clark, for appellee, E. L. Throckmorton.
1. There can be no dispute as to the controlling fact of this case. Defendant admits, or does not deny, either in her answer or her evidence, the contract of sale made by her with plaintiff which he seeks specifically to enforce. The agreement was oral, and is in effect that plaintiff is to pay $2,400 for the land, which contained 80 acres. Twenty dollars were paid in hand, $480 in a little less than five months, and the balance in yearly payments of $500, except the last, which was $400. Notes and a mortgage were to be executed for the deferred payments. The conveyances were to be executed in two or three days after the contract was made. It does not appear that the contract depended upon the conveyance of the land and the execution of the mortgage within the exact time mentioned. The $20 cash was paid to defendant when the contract was made, and the plaintiff, within a day or two after the time fixed for the execution of the deed and delivery of the notes and mortgage, tendered these instruments to defendant. She refused to convey the land, and accept the notes and mortgage, and tendered the $20 received by her to plaintiff.
2. There can be no question as to the correctness of the doctrine announced by defendant's counsel, to the effect that equity will not enforce a contract of the character of the one before us if it be unconscionable, unfair, obtained by the party seeking to enforce it by fraud or undue influence, or is not supported by an adequate consideration, or is ambiguous. Indeed, if there be anything which savors of injustice in the terms of the contract, or deception inducing it, equity will turn away from the party seeking to enforce it. But we find nothing of this kind in the case before us. It is true that, at a time prior to the making of the contract, the father of the plaintiff, who it is claimed by counsel was interested in the transaction, expressed to defendant the opinion that the land was worth more than $25 per acre. Defendant claims that she was influenced by this opinion to fix...
To continue reading
Request your trial