182 Iowa 1190 | Iowa | 1917
In his original petition, plaintiff charged the defendants, the Blakesburg Savings Bank, Walter Abegg, Herbert King, and W. J. Steckel, with conspiring together for the purpose of cheating and defrauding him out of his property. During the progress of the trial, plaintiff dismissed his cause of action against the bank and Abegg, and filed an amendment to his petition, alleging that the remaining defendants, by reason of various transactions, had, in furtherance of said conspiracy, and by duress, induced him to convey all of his personal property to Steckel, and the real property to Belle H. Steckel, on January 24, 1914, without' adequate compensation.
While engaged in the stock business at Bloomfield, Iowa, plaintiff became indebted to the Blakesburg Savings Bank on account in a large sum; resulting, on June 23, 1913, in the entry of a judgment against him in favor of said bank, for $10,443.14. On the same day, judgments were entered against him in favor of the Ottumwa National Bank for $897.22, and in favor of Clara Gamble for $404.92.
Some time prior to the rendition of the judgment in favor of the Blakesburg Bank, plaintiff employed the defendant Steckel to examine his account with the bank, for which service he agreed to pay him $500.
On January 24, 1914, plaintiff executed two deeds, a warranty and a quitclaim, conveying his farm to Belle H. Steckel, and a bill of sale conveying his personal property-in blank, but for the benefit of W. J. Steckel. It is on this occasion that-plaintiff claims that W. J. Steckel, Her
On the first of the above dates, plaintiff claims that Steckel voluntarily advised him to get the money and pay off the claims in favor of the Blakesburg Bank, the Ottumwa National Bank, and Clara Gamble, and promised to get the money for him; and that he signed an application for a loan ranging from $9,500 to $11,000, the amount to depend upon his necessities after he had ascertained the exact amount due the bank. No papers were executed on July oth, but the defendant Steckel, his father, John Glosser, and the sheriff, went to plaintiff’s premises, at which time the sheriff served on plaintiff some notices regarding a suit in favor of the Savings Bank et al. Plaintiff and defendant also had some conversation and negotiations regarding a suit brought by the guardian of John Glosser, against the plaintiff and others, for the partition of the 359-acre farm involved in this controversy. On September 29th, King, accompanied by the defendant, visited plaintiff at his home; and plaintiff testified that, on this occasion, Steckel told him he had come to' help him out, — that the Blakesburg Bank was going to sell him out, slick and clean, —and orally agreed to pay off the judgments and release them of record, and that, for the purpose of securing him therefor, he signed tAvo blank mortgages, — one a real estate mortgage, the other a chattel mortgage, — with the uuder- . standing that Steckel would complete the instruments by filling in the necessary blanks and the description of the
Steckel claims that, on the same occasion, plaintiff also signed a contract authorizing him to procure a settlement or assignment of the above judgments, he to have the benefit of any discount he might obtain by the transaction, and in case of his failure to obtain control of the judgments, to procure, if possible, an extension of time for the payment thereof until January 1, 1914, for which latter service plaintiff agreed to pay him $500. A special execution in favor of the Savings Bank, and general executions in favor of the Ottumwa National Bank and Olara Gamble, were levied upon all of plaintiff’s real estate, except the homestead forty, on September 27, 1913. The above executions were returned October 9, 1913, unsatisfied, by direction of the judgment plaintiffs.
On October 1, 1913, W. J. Steckel purchased the above judgments for a consideration of $10,250, and on October 28th, plaintiff executed another mortgage to Amos Steckel, trustee, for $14,211.35, to secure the payment of the judgments above referred to, — which, at that time, amounted to $12,322.85, — a note for $1,388.50, and one for $500. This mortgage was not recorded.
On January 24, 1914, in addition to the parties above named, there were present the plaintiff, his sister-in-law, Emma Stocker, a lawyer, by the name of Mitchell, and Gertrude, Henry, and Osa Stocker. At this time, defendant held notes against the plaintiff for the following amounts: $30, $475, $800, $500, $1,388.50 and $12,322.85, the last three being dated September 29, 1913. There was also an unsatisfied judgment against plaintiff in favor of the People’s Savings Bank of Blakesburg, for $1,800.
Two instruments, which the defendant Steckel claims to have written at the residence of plaintiff on the night of January 24th, were offered in evidence: one acknowledging
On February 7th following, $500 was paid to Smith for himself, and $500 upon the order of Emma Stocker; and possession of the premises and personal property was turned over to defendant about said date.
In the latter part of December, Steckel, according to the testimony of plaintiff, informed him that he could not furnish the money with which to pay the judgments, and demanded payment thereof; and plaintiff testified that thereafter, his efforts to procure a loan for the purpose of enabling him to pay same were defeated, in part at least, by certain misrepresentations made by Steckel to the loan agent, regarding the amount of the liens against the land. Plaintiff also claims that he at all times relied upon the promises of Steckel to obtain for him a loan with which to pay his indebtedness. The note for $1,388.50 above referred to represented an amount which plaintiff claims Steckel represented to him that he paid to the plaintiff in the partition suit in settlement thereof; whereas Steckel admitted that he paid but $545 therefor, but claims to have fully informed Smith thereof before the execution of the note.
Further material facts will be referred to hereafter.
I. Belle H. Steckel, wife of W. J. Steckel, who'was named as grantee in the deeds of January 24th, voluntarily
Duress is a species of fraud, and one who is' thereby compelled to convey his property to another, without consideration, or for an inadequate compensation, may resort to the same remedies as a person who has been otherwise defrauded out of his property. Neibulir v. Gage, 99 Minn. 149 (108 N. W. 885); Foote v. De Poy, 126 Iowa 366; Welch v. Beeching, 193 Mich. 338 (159 N. W. 486); Pickler v. Wise, 152 Iowa 644.
This question\was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, which, in substance, stated that it had á right to take into consideration all of the above matters, in determining whether .plaintiff’s free agency was overcome and his freedom of choice prevented by the action of defendant, and whether, at the time he delivered possession of the property, he was under the continued influence of the alleged threats of defendant, or whether same Avas voluntarily and freely done. The question Avas for the jury. Callendar Sav. Bank v. Loos, 142 Iowa 1; Henry v. State Bank of Laurens, 131 Iowa 97.
If the deeds and bill of sale were, in fact, obtained by duress, the law presumes, in the absence of testimony to the contrary, that the impelling motive for their execution continued until the final consummation of the transaction, a few days later. Henry v. State Bank of Laurens, 131 Iowa 97; Kwentsky v. Sirovy, 142 Iowa 385.
We find no prejudicial error in the ruling of the court, either in the admission or exclusion of testimony.
V.Exceptions were taken by counsel of defendant to many of the court’s instructions. Some of the exceptions urged were, in their nature, technical, but, in the main, were directed against the theory upon which the court submitted the case to the jury. We have carefully examined and analyzed the separate instructions complained of, and the charge as a whole, and reach the conclusion that the court correctly defined conspiracy and duress, and stated the elements necessary to constitute the same, together with the matters required to be proven by plaintiff, and that the
Counsel also complain of the refusal of the court to give numerous requested instructions. Instructions numbered 22 and 23, asked by defendant, might well have been given by the court; but we think the substance of these instructions were covered by the court’s charge, and that it was not prejudicial error to refuse them. ' ■
“Did the plaintiff, after having some days to reflect and consider said sale, surrender the possession of the property and receive and retain the $1,000, or part thereof? Answer: No.”
Counsel assert that the answer to this special interrogatory is contrary to all of the evidence, including that of plaintiff, and that it, in itself, affords evidence that the jury were influenced by passion and prejudice. Authorities are cited to the effect that a satisfactory finding upon material facts, though not necessarily of a determinative character, contrary to the evidence, is ground for a new trial, and may' be evidence of passion and prejudice. Jeffrey v. K. & D. M. R. Co., 51 Iowa 439; Baldwin v. St. Louis, K. & N. R. Co., 63 Iowa 210; Schulte v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 114 Iowa 89.
The testimony does show, without conflict, that plaintiff received payment of the thousand dollars which defendant claims was the amount agreed upon, January 24th, to be paid by him, and that, within ten days thereafter, plaintiff surrendered possession of the real and personal property to defendant. It is possible ttyat the jury did not correctly interpret the meaning of the question, and did not understand
Counsel for appellant moved the court to withdraw both issues of conspiracy and duress from the consideration of the jury, and now insists that a verdict for plaintiff in any sum, and particularly in the large amount found, is wholly unwarranted by the evidence.
Plaintiff seeks to deny the genuineness of his alleged signature to several of the written instruments offered in evidence, but examination of the original exhibits reveals a striking similarity between the disputed and the admittedly genuine signatures. Plaintiff testified that defendant orally promised to obtain a loan for him in sufficient amoun t to take care of the judgments above referred to, and other pressing indebtedness. This is denied by the defendant. It follows, however, and the jury must have found, that there were negotiations between plaintiff and defendant regarding a loan; but defendant’s contention is that he simply took the application and forwarded the same to the representatives of the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, at Davenport, who, for reasons not material at this time, did not make the loan.
Defendant sought to fortify all his dealings with the plaintiff by procuring signed memoranda, or agreements, covering the same. The several visits of defendant to the premises of plaintiff prior to January 24th were unfortunate in point of time. The first was on the occasion, when he was served-with notice of the several suits brought against him by the National Bank and others. His claimed purpose, on this occasion, was to discuss with, the defendant the pur
None of the several judgments were a lien upon the homestead forty, but the mortgages executed by plaintiff cov
It is also claimed by plaintiff that the defendant, late in December, notified him that he must have his money; that he was prevented, in part, by the misrepresentations of defendant from obtaining a loan; and that, on the 24th of January, Steckel, King, and Oorrick came to his residence at noon, and remained until after midnight, and until the deeds and bill of sale were executed, as plaintiff claims, because of threats to take immediate possession of the premises and personal property and throw plaintiff and the Stocker family into the road.
From the foregoing statement of the testimony, it is ap-, parent that the jury may have found, as the result of the negotiations in question, that defendant derived profits upon the judgments, partition proceedings, and for his services, in a sum approximating $3,000; and that, in addition thereto, defendant conveyed his homestead forty, upon which the judgments were not a lien, and lost his right of redemption fróm execution sale and to occupy the premises another cropping season, without any profit or advantage of any kind to him from any of the transactions, except the $500 paid on February 7th.
Even if these transactions were to be justified upon the ground of legitimate business, yet the jury may have thought that they were made possible only by inducing a belief in plaintiff that he was, in the end, to profit thereby, to the extent at least of freeing 'his land from the threat of im mediate execution sale, and thereby giving him time within
If defendant, at the time he took plaintiff’s application for a loan, knew the character and value of plaintiff’s land to be as now claimed by him, he must have known that he could not obtain money from the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company thereon upon any fair representation of its value, and that whatever promise, if ány, he held out to plaintiff, was not justified. If, on the other hand, the land was worth substantially as found by the jury, a loan, by good-faith effort, for the requested amount could doubtless have been procured without great delay.
Proceeding on the theory that the land was not worth to exceed $40 per acre, and knowing the large amount for which plaintiff was indebted to the bank and others, we cannot say there is not some justification for plaintiff’s claim that defendant, either because of design or inevitable necessity, knew that, in the end, he would absorb all of the land and personal property of defendant, in payment of the judgments and other indebtedness evidenced by the notes held by him. And the jury may not, in view of these facts, have entertained a very favorable view of defendant’s several written contracts, authorizing transactions out of which he was sure of substantial profit, without conferring any corresponding benefit upon plaintiff. Profits accruing' to a litigant from speculation in matters which have involved his adversary in serious business distress, from which he is seeking to extricate himself, are not well calculated to challenge either the admiration or friendly acquiescence of a jury.
While the above matters may fall short of proving a conspiracy between Steckel and King, they do tend to throw some light upon the motives and purposes of Steckel in bis dealings with Smith. The jury had a right to draw every legitimate inference from all the evidence in the case, and
Plaintiff’s witnesses placed the value of the land at from $60 to $75 per acre, and defendant’s, at from $25 to $42.50. The discrepancy in these estimates left a wide margin for the finding of the jury. The court stated the measure of damages to be the difference between the amount paid by defendant, and the fair, reasonable market value of the land. After allowing the indebtedness and all claims of the defendant, the amount awarded is within the average value of the land, as fixed by the several witnesses called by plaintiff. The jury was fully warranted by the evidence in finding that defendant obtained the property in question for an inadequate consideration, and a judgment in some amount might naturally have been expected.
Counsel for defendant sought a reduction in the amount of the verdict in the court below, which was refused; and, notwithstanding the size of the verdict, we cannot, after a careful reading of the entire record, find sufficient support for defendant’s claim that same was the result of passion and prejudice.
The credibility of the witnesses and all questions of fact involved were for the jury, and its finding is final and conclusive upon this court; and we cannot, in the absence of such showing as would justify the conclusion that the same is the result of passion and prejudice, disturb the verdict.
As before stated, the record in this case is voluminous; but same has been carefully examined, and we reach the conclusion therefrom that, notwithstanding the large verdict returned by the jury, no reversible error is presented, and the judgment of the lower court must be — Affirmed.