Veeder v. Veeder
| Decision Date | 10 March 1909 |
| Citation | 120 N.W. 61,141 Iowa 492 |
| Parties | D. L. VEEDER, Appellant, v. MILDRED R. VEEDER ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Wright District Court.--HON. R. M. WRIGHT, Judge.
ACTION in equity asking that a deed absolute in form be declared a mortgage and canceled. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.--Reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
Nagle & Nagle and Peterson & Knapp, for appellant.
Ladd & Rogers, for appellees.
February 16, 1893, the plaintiff was the owner of the land in controversy, one hundred and forty-four acres, and on that date he and his wife, conveyed the same to the deceased, W E. Veeder, by deed of general warranty, subject, however, to a mortgage of $ 2,200, with accrued interest thereon, which the grantee, W. E. Veeder, assumed and agreed to pay as a part of the purchase price of the land; but plaintiff remained in possession of the land. At the time of this conveyance the appellant was indebted to various persons and firms, the aggregate amount of which indebtedness greatly exceeded the value of his equity in the land conveyed. Shortly after the transfer, W. E. Veeder paid on judgments which were liens on the land and on claims on which suit had been brought against appellant about $ 1,980. He also redeemed the land from a tax sale, paying therefor $ 59.95 and thereafter he paid $ 230 interest then due on the mortgage. So that practically at the time the land was conveyed to him he furnished the money for and paid off debts due from the appellant aggregating $ 2,267.36, aside from the principal of the mortgage that he had assumed to pay, which was $ 2,200. In addition to the indebtedness that was paid off by W. E. Veeder, the appellant was indebted in various sums to different creditors aggregating a large amount.
There are no legal questions involved in this case that are not well settled. That a deed absolute in form may be declared a mortgage where it is shown by satisfactory evidence that it was given for and intended as security for a debt is held in numerous cases. Laub v. Romans, 131 Iowa 427, 105 N.W. 102; McElroy v. Allfree, 131 Iowa 112, 108 N.W 116. And this is true although the deed is made subject to a mortgage which the grantee assumes to pay. Dunton v. McCook, 93 Iowa 258, 61 N.W. 977. While some circumstances are shown which tend to negative the appellant's claim, a careful reading of the entire record has satisfied us that the conveyance was intended merely as security for the amount which should be paid by W. E. Veeder on the appellant's indebtedness.
It is the appellant's contention that the amount paid out for him by W. E. Veeder has been fully repaid, but we are not by any means satisfied that such is, in fact, the case, and the condition of the record is such that we do not feel like attempting to determine the question. We think the case should go back to the district court for an accounting between the parties, and that, in determining the state of the account, the appellees should be credited with all sums shown to have been expended by W. E. Veeder in the payment of the appellant's debts and in improving the property in question. Nothing less than this will satisfy the demands of equity, and the appellant surely can not complain thereof. That the rights of both parties may be thus protected is held in Dunton v. McCook, supra.
It is the appellees' contention that the conveyance was made with intent to defraud the creditors of D. E. Veeder, and that this action can not be maintained because thereof. For the purposes of this case, it may be conceded...
To continue reading
Request your trial