Williams v. Chapman
Decision Date | 06 February 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 47790,47790 |
Citation | 242 Iowa 294,46 N.W.2d 56 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. CHAPMAN et al. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Crary, DeWitt & Crary, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Prichard & Prichard, of Onawa, for appellees.
The facts are the determining factor in this case. The land involved is a 131-acre farm near the town of Hornick in Woodbury County. Plaintiff has the record title to the land through sheriff's deed obtained May 6, 1940, in the foreclosure of a mortgage which he had on the place. Plaintiff who was 95 years old in September, 1950, operated a retail hardware store in Hornick from 1903 to October, 1942, at which time he was forced to close the business because he had become totally blind about March, 1942. He had lost the sight in one eye some years before. His wife died in 1913. He had no children. His oldest brother, Tom, though his family lived in Wisconsin, for several years prior to his death in 1924, worked for plaintiff in his business for about eight months of each year.
Defendant, Harriet Chapman, is a daughter of Tom Williams, and a niece of plaintiff. She is his nearest relative. The defendant, Harker Chapman, is the husband of Harriet. They have several sons and daughters. Before defendants moved to Iowa in January, 1941, they had operated a large dairy farm near Darlington, Wisconsin. During the years when her father assisted plaintiff in his store, Harriet Chapman, was a visitor in plaintiff's home in Hornick after wife's death, one or more times each year. On occasions she would stay several weeks, assisting in the home and store, when plaintiff was not feeling well. Defendants' daughter, Lillian, also visited plaintiff.
In his petition, filed March 10, 1950, plaintiff alleged that defendants were occupying the farm gratuitously as his tenants at will, having gone into possession in 1941 under an oral agreement with him that defendants were to pay no rent during their occupancy and were to retain possession only so long as he should permit. Attached to petition were copies of a notice terminating the tenancy on March 1, 1950, under Code Chapter 562, I.C.A., served on defendants August 18, 1949, and of a three-days notice to quit the premises served on them March 2, 1950.
By answer defendants denied the allegation as to tenancy at will, and by cross-petition alleged that on or about April, 1940, plaintiff stated to defendants that it they would move to Iowa and live on the farm and help look after him, they could live there as long as the plaintiff lived without paying any rent but the taxes on the property, and that he would will the property to Harriet Chapman so that it would be her property on his death. They alleged that they accepted the offer and took possession of the farm March 1, 1941, and have occupied it since; that plaintiff when totally blind, came to their home on the farm in March, 1942, and lived there under their care until August 18, 1949, when he voluntarily left without any cause therefor on their part, and after he had contracted to sell the farm to another. They allege complete performance of the contract on their part, in so far as plaintiff permitted them. They prayed for full protection of their rights.
In his reply plaintiff alleged that 'defendants were to have the use of the premises without the payment of rent except an amount sufficient to pay taxes thereon during such period of time as the plaintiff desired to live in their home.'
Plaintiff had owned a half-section farm in Monona County for a good many years. On August 7, 1933, he wrote a letter to 'Dear Hattie'. He began the letter thus: He finished his letter thus: Defendants were not interested in breaking off home ties in Wisconsin.
Defendants' daughter, Lillian, 40 years old, wife of Earl Sandley, being too ill to travel testified by deposition that: she had visited plaintiff in July or August, 1937, for about ten days, after a trip with friends to Pocahontax, Iowa, and he had sent a car to fetch her from Correctionville to Hornick; that one day during this visit while in plaintiff's store, he took a paper from his safe, which was his will, signed by him and witnessed, saying, 'Here is something I want you to see', and he showed her that part of the will that stated that her mother was to have the Monona County farm, and after she read it he folded the paper and put it back. She also testified that in January or February, 1939, plaintiff wrote her to visit him and sent her carfare; that he was sick in bed with the flu in March, 1939 when she arrived, and after his recovery, she stayed on until January, 1940, when she returned to her home and was married shortly after. Before she left plaintiff asked her if she thought her folks would come to live with him out there and run the Davis farm, and said that if they would do that he would 'change things' and mother would get that farm instead of the Monona County farm. She testified that before she left for home in January , 1940 her mother came to plaintiff's home. Other visits were made afterwards by Lillian to plaintiff's home.
Mrs. Chapman had been with plaintiff when his first eye went bad, and came again before her daughter returned home in January, 1940, and later her husband came out to return home with her. They were both there in April, 1940, when plaintiff discussed with them his proposition. He discussed the matter first with Mr. Chapman and he deferred answering until his wife had passed upon it. She was asked, 'Can you tell the court what that conversation was at that time?' She answered:
Mr. Chapman's testimony was substantially the same as that of his wife.
With reference to the italicized words, Mr. Chapman testified that plaintiff said 'he wanted four per cent on $9,000 (the amount he had in the place), four per cent interest and the taxes.' Plaintiff did not live with them on the farm in 1941, and they paid plaintiff the $360 interest for a year and the taxes on the farm for that year. When plaintiff returned from the hospital totally blind in March, 1942, he asked to be and was taken to the Chapmans on the farm. They gave him the bedroom downstairs and the 'sitting room'. They furnished the rooms particularly for his comfort and convenience. The furniture was always left in the same place. They built a long sidewalk from his bedroom door, and another long sidewalk in the opposite direction, and they stretched wires along each walk, so that when the weather was suitable, plaintiff could take his walks in safety. He always had the same place at the table. He had a rather sensitive stomach, and Mrs. Chapman, who prided herself somewhat on being a dietician, prepared special food and meals for him.
After his blindness in March, 1942, he still had his business undisposed of and Mrs. Chapman took him to the store every day and remained there with him and waited on the trade, took in the receipts and kept the books, from 8 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock at night. This was repeated every week day until the business was closed out in the latter part of October, 1942. A Mr. Patrick, an expert in closing-out sales was hired for the last two weeks.
Mrs. Chapman did his laundry and pressed his clothes. He 'dressed up' each day, and always wore a white shirt. Twice a week Mr. or Mrs. Chapman took plaintiff to Hornick to the bank and the barber shop, and also took him...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brandt v. Schucha
...vendor. We have in mind that 'purchase money,' as used in this connection, is construed to mean consideration. Williams v. Chapman, 242 Iowa 294, 311, 46 N.W.2d 56, 65. Plaintiff did not take or hold possession of the premises under and by virtue of the alleged oral contract. He was in poss......
-
Schofield v. Schofield
...the oral contract be undisputed or be established as an absolute certainty. Reasonable certainty is sufficient. Williams v. Chapman, 242 Iowa 294, 307--309, 46 N.W.2d 56, 63, 64, and 'In Merkel v. Merkel, supra, the facts were undisputed. A written agreement was shown. In Pappas v. Pappas, ......
- Wickey v. Muscatine County
-
Vanston v. Rupe
...that proof of the contract must be undisputed or to an absolute certainty--reasonable certainty is sufficient. Williams v. Chapman, 242 Iowa 294, 307-309, 46 N.W.2d 56, 63, 64, and citations. Requirement of this high degree of proof is not confined to cases where the alleged vendor is dead ......