3 Iowa 350 | Iowa | 1856
This was a bill to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of certain lands, which for convenience are numbered and referred to, as in the statement of the case: 1st. The southeast quarter of northeast quarter section 36, town 88 north, range 5 west; 2d. The northeast quarter of southeast quarter of the same section ; 3d. The southeast quarter of southeast quarter of the same section; 4th. The northeast quarter of northeast quarter of section 1, town 87 north, range 5 west; 5th. The southwest quarter of northwest quarter section 32, town 88 north, 4 west. The contract of sale was made by John W. Pierce, and was to make good title, and to convey with warranty deed, upon the payment of one hundred and fifty dollars down, and eight hundred and fifty dollars on the 1st of May, A.D. 1854. No default is found on the part of the complainant, and no good reason for non-performance on the part of the respondents, and therefore, the decree of this court must be in affirmance of that of the court below. The making of the contract of sale is denied by no one, nor is there any specific ground for defence set up, unless it be that the petitioner did not perform his part punctually; or that he afterwards declined performance, when the respondents, or some of them, wereyeady; or that the principal respond
The contract itself requires no comment. On the 1st of May, 1854, the day for payment and performance, the complainant went to the house where the respondent, John W. Pierce, resided, with eight hundred and fifty dollars in gold, to pay on the contract, upon receiving title. This is only formally denied, whilst it is proved by the testimony of Smith, Paul, and Barker, the first of whom actually counted the money, and the others saw it. The complainant did not find John W., but saw Edward, with whom John lived, told him his business, and offered the money. Edward replied, truly enough, that he had nothing to do with the matter, and could not receive the money. But there is an attempt to show argumentatively, that petitioner knew that John was absent at the time. This is not very clearly shown; but what if he did know it ? It was much better and easier for him, to do what was incumbent on him for that day, than to trust to proving the excuse for non-performance, namely, the absence of the respondent, John W. It will be remembered, that the reason of this defendant’s absence was, that he had gone to Minnesota, to obtain from Clarence, an assignment of the contract with the fund commissioner, so as to enable him to fulfill his agreement with the petitioner. This respondent then alleges, that on his return he offered to perform, and the parties agreed to meet at Delhi, on the 15th of May, and complete the business; that he offered to execute a proper deed, and that the said Phoebe did make and tender a deed of the land held by her, but that complainant refused to pay the money, and receive the deeds. At that time, the obligor, John W., had the title to but one
The legal effect of contracts to make title, or to deliver a deed to land under a contract of purchase, is generally that the vendor shall make a good title. As a general rule, it makes but little difference what the precise terms of the contract are — whether the vendor agrees to make title, or a good title — or to make a deed, or a warranty deed — if it appears that he is negotiating to sell at a sound price, to be paid, or part paid, at the conveyance. In such cases, usually, the vendor, without a nice' examination of words, is understood to agree for a good title, and the vendee cannot be put off with merely a good deed. This rule, however, does not preelude those cases where the vendee appears to be purchasing the vendor’s title, such as it may be. Aiken v. Sandford, 1 M. R. 494; Clarke v. Redman, 1 Blkf. 379; Clute v. Robinson, 2 J. 595; Jones v. Gardner, 10 Ib. 266 ; Judson v. Wass, 11 Ib., 525; Tucker v. Woods, 12 Ib., 190; Robb v. Montgomery., 20 Ib. 13. And the want of an existing capacity to perform, has been held a defence to notes and bonds. Tyler v. Torny, 2 Scam. 445 ; Kenard v. Bates, 1 Blkf. 172; Warner v. Hatfield, 4 Blk. 392; Blann v. Smith, 4 Blkf. 517 ; Contra, Coleman v. Sanderlin, 5 Humph. 562.
The complainant went to Delhi, prepared to pay his money, and take the title, but he was justified in withdrawing, when he found the condition of things still existing. Besides this, between the first of May and the time of this meeting, an attachment had been levied upon nearly half of
In this state of things, we do not find any default in the complainant, by which he loses his rights under his agreement. On the other hand, there is not seen anything, which can be called a legal excuse for, or justification of, non-performance. The principal respondent, the vendor, had not the legal title in himself, and therefore had not the actual ability to perform, but the question, and it is the main question in the case, is, whether he did not so stand in relation to his co-defendants, as to be able to compel them to fulfill their contracts ? and whetb er the position or relation of them, or of some of them, is not such as to bring them within the reach of this complainant? To answer this question, we must look at them singly, and see what rights they had, and what obligations they were under. Clarke Bliss is but a nominal party, having no relation to the matter, but through his wife, formerly Phoebe Pierce, and he may be passed without further remark. Peter Case was the school fund commissioner, and is but a formal party. This answer discloses that, as such officer, he held a mortgage on part of tract No. 2, for the sum of fifty dollars. He omits to state by whom this was given, and the date of it. He also says that he held a mortgage on tract No. 5, for the sum of ninety-two dollars and fifty cents, dated July 20th, 1854, executed by
Wo come now to Phoebe Bliss, who is more intimately connected with the matter of the bill. She held the title to tracts Nos. 1 and 2. Her answer is not a satisfactory one. She does not answ er fully and specifically. She admits making the bond to Clarence and John, but does not give the date, amount, nor term, for which the mortgage therein referred to, was given, nor by whom, nor the amount which she claimed as due her; and when exceptions were taken to the answer, she evades, or at least omits, answering to the most essential portions. But she states some things which assist us to a conclusion. Of this character is the statement that she did not object to John’s selling the land; that she offered the deed to complainant, on the 15th of May, at the request of John; and that she did demand seven dollars per acre for the land; and it further appears, from the papers in the cause, that on the 4th of December, 1854, she with her husband conveyed these two tracts to Clarence. Thus, there is sufficient to show, that Avhatever claims she had in regard to the land, were satisfied as far back as the 15th of May, and that from that time she only represented Clarence and John, or one of them. As to her demand of seven dollars an acre for the land, the only remark needed is, that her contract did not leave her at liberty to make such a requirement. She says she was to convey upon the payment of the mortgage and a certain sum due to her. This was irrespective of any rate per acre. But if she had the right to ask this, it was a question between her and the asignees in her bond. Shreek had nothing to do with it. The only effect of this demand, therefore, was to neutralize the tender of the deed to the complainant. We conclude, then, that Phcebe Bliss does not
We come to the consideration nest of Clarence Pierce’s position. He answers that on the 25th of October, 1853 (the time of the agreement), he held the fund commissioners’ contract for tracts Nos. 3 and 4, and owned Nos. 1 and 2; that he convej'ed to the said Phoebe, and took the bond to John and himself; that he caused the assignment of the commissioners’ contract for Nos. 3 and 4, to Edward, only to enable him to obtain title to a certain parcel, not embraced in this suit. This being done, no interest remained in Edward. As we understand his answer, he says he owned (at least the equitable, or contract title to) parcels Nos. 1 and 2, at the time when the agreement was made with Shreck, and that he assigned it to Phoebe after that. But. upon looking at the answer of Phoebe and Jc3hn, we are led into some doubt of the meaning. The answers of Clarence, John, and Phoebe, are none of them full, clear, and satisfactory. On the whole, the conclusion is, that Clarence so answers, and Phoebe does not contradict it, nor does she state anything inconsistent with it. She says that she “ is now,” (at the time of answering), the owner of the said lands. It would seem that on the 25th of October, 1853, Clarence was the equitable owner under the contracts of purchase from the fund commissioner, or otherwise, of all the tracts named in the bill, except No. 5, and that John had the title to that; that Clarence conveyed to Phoebe, and took the bond to John and himself; that he authorized John to sell the land in order to raise monej'; and that he stands under equal obligations with John, for the performance of the contract with Shreck. Perhaps little need be said in relation to the answer of John Pierce, as most of the remarks pertinent to it, have been made upon the other answer. He denies the offer of the $850, and denies that he refused performance until long after the first of May. He says he has no personal knowledge of Shreck’s coming to his residence and making a tender on the first of May, and therefore denies. It will be remembered that he had gone to Minnesota at the time. He disingenu
Therefore, it is the opinion of this court, that the decree of the District Court should be affirmed, both generally and in detail.