Williams v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 22 January 1898
• Citation: 73 N.W. 1029,104 Iowa 423
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. HAMILTON ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

104 Iowa 423

73 N.W. 1029

WILLIAMS

v.HAMILTON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 22, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Greene county; S. M. Elwood, Judge.

Suit in equity to rescind and set aside a contract for the exchange of real estate because of fraud, or to reform the contract because of mistake, and to recover the remainder of the consideration due on the instrument as reformed. The trial court decreed reformation and awarded damages as prayed, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Bishop, Bowen & Fleming, for appellants.

B. O. Clark, Russell & Toliver, and M. W. Beach, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

After some negotiations between plaintiff and defendant B. C. Hamilton with reference to the exchange of real estate, they entered into a written contract, of which the following is a copy:

“To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that we have this day entered an agreement whereby J. T. Williams will sell and convey unto Dr. B. C. Hamilton 176 acres of land, described as follows, to wit: The northeast fraction of the northwest quarter of section 2 of Glidden township, Carroll county, Iowa, containing fifty-eight acres; also, south half of northeast quarter; also, north half of north half of southeast quarter of section 2 in Glidden township, Carroll county, Iowa. The said Dr. B. C. Hamilton agreeing to give me, in payment for same, one house and four lots situated in S. & S. addition of Scranton, Iowa; also, sixteen head of shoats,--the above valued at $1,700; also, $2,500 worth of accounts and notes; the said J. T. Williams agreeing to return to the said B. C. Hamilton all money or accounts left after collecting the $1,900, the sum total being $3,600; the said B. C. Hamilton guarantying the said amounts to be true and correct in all respects, and giving two years for collection, but not guarantying the payment of same.

+-------------------------+
                ¦[Signed]¦B. C. Hamilton. ¦
                +-------------------------+
                

J. T. his X mark Williams.

Witnesses: Charles Rowley. Nellie Rowley.

Dated at Scranton City, Iowa, 2, 21, 1891.”

Plaintiff claims that the contract was induced by fraud, in that defendant represented that the town lots were worth $1,600, and had cost him that amount, whereas, in truth and in fact, they were worth and had cost but $900; and that the accounts and notes referred to in the contract were correct, and were against persons of good credit and financial standing, and would be paid within one year, whereas, in truth, the said accounts and notes were incorrect and untrue, and were against persons of poor credit and standing. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant agreed to assign the notes and accounts to him as security for the payment of $1,800, inducing him to believe that such security would be better than a mortgage upon the property, and that, when the contract was reduced to writing by defendant, he (defendant) pretended to embody this condition therein, and stated to plaintiff (who is illiterate, and unable to either read or write) that the contract, as so written, contained all of the oral contracts previously made, whereas, in truth, it did not set forth the true agreement, but contained a clause absolving defendant from future liability on account of the notes and accounts; that defendant intentionally omitted from the written contract his oral promise to pay $1,800 in cash within two years from the date of the contract, and his further promise to assign $2,500 worth of accounts and notes as security for this payment, and, taking advantage of plaintiff's ignorance, fraudulently and intentionally wrote the contract as it now appears; that plaintiff believed from defendant's statements that the written contract contained the oral agreement theretofore made, and was thereby induced to sign the same. Plaintiff further charges that he conveyed the land called for by the contract to B. C. Hamilton, who in turn conveyed the same to Maggie Hamilton, but that this last-named conveyance was made with intent to wrong and cheat him out of the purchase price. He further alleges that he received a conveyance of the town lots, the personal property called for by the contract, and an assignment of notes and accounts, but that said notes and accounts were not worth to exceed $720.50, which was the amount actually collected thereon. He further pleaded a rescission of the contract, and asked that defendants be ordered to reconvey, or that the written contract be reformed to express the true agreement of the parties, and that he have judgment for the remainder of the $1,800 agreed to be paid. The trial court denied the prayer for rescission, but decreed a reformation of the contract, and awarded plaintiff the balance of the $1,800. As plaintiff is content with this conclusion, and does not appeal, we have only to consider the correctness of the decree reforming the contract. If the decree is right as to the reformation, then it should be affirmed, for there is no doubt that the award of compensation thereunder is correct.

It appears from the evidence that plaintiff is an ignorant man, unable to read or write, and that defendant gained his confidence through...