Van Donselaar v. Jones
| Decision Date | 13 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 35128 |
| Citation | 192 N.W. 22,195 Iowa 1081 |
| Parties | ELLA VAN DONSELAAR et al., Appellants, v. NORRIS H. JONES et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED MAY 18, 1923.
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--C. C. HAMILTON, Judge.
ACTION for damages for fraudulent representations in the sale of real estate. At the close of plaintiffs' evidence, and upon the motion of the defendants, the trial court abated the action for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that the plaintiffs had obtained apparent jurisdiction of the defendants only by resort to deceit and trickery. Judgment was entered against the plaintiffs for costs, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Henderson Fribourg & Hatfield and D. Van Donselaar, for appellants.
Leslie J. Lyons, F. W. Hanna, E. E. Wagner, and Robert B. Pike, for appellees.
In March, 1919, the plaintiffs purchased of the defendants 480 acres of land in Lyman County, South Dakota. For nearly two years thereafter, both plaintiffs and defendants continued as residents of that county. Shortly before the beginning of this action, the defendants had become residents of the state of Ohio. About the same time, the plaintiffs claimed to have discovered that the land purchased by them was impregnated with alkali, from which cause great injury had been suffered by them by reason of its effect upon stock kept upon the farm. For the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction over the defendants or over their property outside of the state of Ohio, a ruse was resorted to by the plaintiffs, and participated in by a brother and sister residing in Sioux City, Iowa. The defendants held a second mortgage of $ 6,100 against the plaintiffs. This was past due, and the plaintiffs were unable to pay. A Mrs. Resner of Sioux City wrote a letter to the defendants, offering to buy the mortgage and making an offer therefor. The real purpose of that offer was to get the defendants to send the mortgage to one of the banks at Sioux City, where the proceeds of the purchase could be paid, and could thereafter be attached in this suit by the plaintiffs. The defendants accepted the offer, and sent on their mortgage. Mrs. Resner was a sister of the plaintiffs'. At the appointed time, she and her brother and plaintiffs' attorney (not appearing herein) and the sheriff appeared at the bank, and simultaneously paid the money and received the mortgage and levied an attachment by garnishment of the bank. In this manner, jurisdiction was acquired over defendants' property. Thereafter, notice was served upon the defendants in the state of Ohio. They appeared in defense of their property, without knowledge, as contended, of the deceit that had been practiced upon them in obtaining jurisdiction. The facts pertaining to the deceit were disclosed upon the trial by the examination of one of the plaintiffs as a witness. That the defendants were deceived by the ruse, and that they would not have sent the mortgage out of their own jurisdiction for the purpose of a sale thereof if they had not been deceived, is not difficult of belief.
It is well settled that the courts will not tolerate resort to trickery or deceit for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction over the person or property of a defendant who would not otherwise be subject to that jurisdiction. Our cases to that effect are cited in Crandall v. Trowbridge, 170 Iowa 155, 156, 150 N.W. 669, though the finding in the Crandall case was adverse to the defendant upon the facts. There is no serious dispute between counsel as to the holding of the cases, and we need not, therefore, review them.
The real points urged by the appellants as...
To continue reading
Request your trial