115 Iowa 701 | Iowa | 1901
The plaintiff is the father of the defendant, Josiah Brant, and at the time of the conveyance of the land in question to him was about 70 years old. It fairly appears that the deed to the defendant Josiah Brant covered all of the plaintiff’s real property, and it 'conclusively appears that the conveyance was entirely without consideration ; that it was not in fact, and cannot in any view of the case be considered, an advancement to the son; and that the sole and only purpose for which it was made was to place the property beyond the reach of any judgment which might lie obtained against the plaintiff for supposed illicit relations with his hired girl. The evidence before us touching the question of such illicit relations, and touching the question of his-liability therefor, satisfies us that there is nothing in the claim and that under the rule announced in Kervick v. Mitchell, 68 Iowa, 273, the purpose of his conveyance cannot stand ill the way of his recovery in. this action. The question we have to deal with is therefore on© of fact only, and is whether the son, the defendant herein, induced the conveyance by false and fraudulent representations to the plaintiff. The testimony of the father and son -on this important subject cannot well be harmonized, and, were there no facts and circumstances shown bearing upon the question, we would be compelled to hold that the plaintiff had not sustained his position. In almost every important particular, except as-to the time of the alleged conversation inducing the conveyance and as to its extent and nature, the defendant’s testimony, either given by himself or by his witnesses, tends to'