180 Iowa 1281 | Iowa | 1917
The defenses urged upon behalf of defendants were, in ■substance: (a) That the consideration to be paid for said premises was inadequate; (b) that James Mutch was at the time a person of unsound mind, and that he and his wife are greatly distressed over the sale of said premises
It appears from the evidence that James Mutch was born in Scotland, went to Tama County many years ago, and has accumulated a fortune of about $250,000, owns 760 acres of land in the vicinity of the above described premises, including the land in controversy, and . has been an active, hard-working, successful farmer. His famiiy consists of three daughters and three sons, all of whom were, at the time of the. transaction in question, absent from Ms home, except Elizabeth, who is unmarried.
The land in question is .apparently well located, in a good state of cultivation, and well tiled and drained. The improvements thereon, however, are run down to some extent, and the residence is small, old and in bad'■ condition. Witnesses testify that the farm has not been as well kept up and cared for recently as in former years. ’
Numerous witnesses, including two physicians, testified regarding the mental condition of James Mutch. From the testimony of the physicians, it may be inferred that he has for some time been to some extent afflicted with senile dementia and arteriosclerosis, and that his general physical condition was not good. One of the physicians testified to having waited upon him during a period of illness. They both express the opinion that he was not competent to form an intelligent opinion and rationally transact business of an important character.
He was, at the time of the execution of the contract, 82 years of age, and during the period of his residence in
The evidence of claimed improvident dealing upon his part consists of the sale of a horse for $100, claimed to ■ have been worth $150 to $160, and of the sale of a few bushels of timothy seed for $1 per bushel which was worth $5 per bushel, and the sale of the land in question for $180 per acre upon a payment of $5,600, with 10 years’ time on deferred payments at 5 per cent interest. As is usual in cases of this character, there was considerable diversity of opinion among witnesses as to the fair market value of the
The evidence regarding the transaction culminating in the execution of the contract, the indorsement thereon of June 11th, and the deed, as the same appears in the record, is, in substance, as follows: In 1911, defendant listed the land with E. E. Taylor, a newspaper and real estate man of Traer, for sale, and same was advertised for sale in circular form and in the Traer Clipper; that an offer of $175 per acre was made for the land and refused by Mr. Mutch; that an offer was made, about the time the contract was consummated, to buy the land for $175 per acre, but defendant clung tenaciously to his price of $180 per acre; that, on the day of the sale, one of the parties whose conduct is complained of Avent in the forenoon and suav defendant in an effort to purchase the land at $175. This he Avas unable to do, and, in the afternoon, the several parties, knowing that Mr. Mutch was going or had gone to Reinbeck, went to said place in an automobile and arrived there in advance of Mr. Mutch. He and 'some of the parties went to the bank; appellee was called in; the deal was talked over; the contract and deed were executed, and arrangements made by which some of the parties went with James Mutch to his home, where Mary Mutch, his Avife, signed the deed; and the same was returned to the bank, where it was kept Avith the contract.
The record fails to disclose any fraudulent representations or conduct on the part of anyone at the bank. The contract was written by one of the officers, and there appears to have been but little conversation between the several persons present. The terms upon which the land was listed with the agent for sale included a cash payment of $10,000, but appellee at the time stated that, before he moved upon the farm, he would have to build a modern
The circumstances relied upon by appellant as offering evidence of conspiracy and fraud are that the parties charged with bad faith watched Mr. Mutch pas's Taylor’s to town, and themselves took a different road to avoid passing him"; that they met him upon his arrival at Reinbeck; took him to the bank and procured the execution of the papers; hurried him home to get the signature of his wife to the deed and the matter all closed up before knowledge thereof should be brought to the attention of other members of the family. The parties present at the time of the signing of the deed by Mrs. Mutch testified that Elizabeth was there and procured writing material for the use of the parties in executing the instrument — this, however, she denies and says she was not in the room and did not know what 'was going on; that there was no attempt at concealment; and that- they went to' the Mutch residence upon his suggestion
While we have not mentioned all of the testimony tending to throw light on the mental competency of James Mutch, we have referred to the more important portions thereof, and from the entire record we are of the opinion that, while he was doubtless enfeebled by age and to some extent deprived of the mental vigor and business sagacity of former years, yet he had not so far deteriorated mentally as to be unable to comprehend and understand the transaction in question, and to reach a reasonable conclusion as to what he desired to do in the way of selling his land. The improvements on the farm were apparently deteriorating in value, his eyesight was bad, on account of his age it was inconvenient for him to manage his business affairs, his sons were all absent from home and he was compelled to rely upon hired help or tenants to farm his land, and his conclusion to sell a part thereof would not tend to indicate lack of'proper mental capacity. The time allowed for the payment of the $52,000 was, at his age, pretty long, but it was claimed that he stated, at the time of the execution of the contract, that he did not need the money, and that the interest income would yield him more than $6 per acre rental for the land, and that he had ample money for his needs. It appears from the testimony that he, at the time, had $15,000 in the bank where the papers were drawn, on which he was receiving 4 per cent interest. He may have been inspired with the belief that his family was against him, and with a desire to go away, but his desire does not seem to have controlled his judgment to the extent of inducing him to sell the land at even $5 an acre less than the
The land had been on the market for many months without a buyer. Counsel for appellants explain this, however, by saying that no one in the community believed that he would sell his land when put to the test. That this belief was prevalent in the community appears from the evidence to be true, and it may have influenced those who might otherwise have purchased the land to refrain from attempting to do so.
But there is, in our opinion, no such inadequacy of consideration as to shock the conscience or justify the inference that James Mutch was overreached in the transaction. The judgment of men as to values of property differ so radically that expressions of opinion as to such matters are not usually very conclusive, but of necessity constitúte evidence that must be given careful consideration by the court. Making some allowance for the possible tendency to under- and over-value the land, under the circumstances, and placing the value of the land at some reasonable figure between the values fixed by the witnesses in behalf of the respective litigants, we think the land may have been worth a few dollars an acre more than the price paid, but the difference is not sufficient to justify the court in finding the consideration so grossly inadequate as to require the interference of a court of equity. The inference is not unreasonable that, after the indorsement had been placed on the back of the contract, requiring the purchaser to secure the payment of
“Mere weakmindedness, whether natural or produced by old age, sickness, or other infirmity, unaccompanied by any other inequitable incidents, if the person has sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of the transaction, and is left to act upon his own free will, is not a sufficient ground to defeat the enforcement of an executory contract, or to set aside an executed agreement or conveyance.” Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence (3d Ed.), Section 947. See Crooks v. Smith, 123 Iowa 439; Nowlen v. Nowlen, 122 Iowa 541; Paulus v. Reed, 121 Iowa 224; Harrison v. Otley, 101 Iowa 652.
The rule in cases of this kind is well settled by the decisions of this court:
“It is well settled by the decisions of this court, as well as by the decisions elsewhere, that, to avoid a contract on the ground of mental incapacity, it must be satisfactorily shown that the party was incapable of transacting the particular business in question. If delusions be relied upon, it must be shown that they influenced the party to such an extent that he had no reasonable conception or understanding of the true nature and terms of the contract.” Mathews v. Nash, 151 Iowa 125, 127; Swartwood v. Chance, 131 Iowa 714; Reese v. Shutte, 133 Iowa 681.
“Where, however, the contract is in writing, is certain in its terms, is for a valuable consideration, is fair and just in all its provisions, and is capable of being enforced without hardship to either party, it is as much a matter of course for a court of equity to decree its specific performance as for a court of law to award a judgment of damages for its breach. * * * The remedy of specific performance is governed by the same general rules which control the administration of all other equitable remedies. The right to it depends upon elements, conditions, and incidents, which equity regards as essential to the administration of all its peculiar modes of relief. When all these elements, conditions, and incidents exist, the remedial right is perfect in equity.” Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence (3d Ed.), Section 1404, and cases cited. See Auter v. Miller, 18 Iowa 405; New York Brokerage Co. v. Wharton, 143 Iowa 61.
Among the circumstances tending most strongly to indicate bad faith upon the part of appellee was the omission from the original contract of any provision for securing the payment of the $52,000. There - appears, however, to have been nothing said about the matter by anyone present at the time, and the omission may have been wholly unintentional, and not in any sense attributable to the act of appellee. In any event, the attorney who acted for appellants testified that, upon request, appellee signed the in
There is not such evidence of trickery, fraud, bad faith, inequitable conduct, inadequacy of consideration or mental capacity on the part of Mr. Mutch, or other facts or circumstances, as to justify a court of equity, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, in refusing specific performance of the terms of the contract.
Upon the whole record, we think the conclusion of the trial court was right, and the judgment below is — Affirmed.