40 Iowa 402 | Iowa | 1875
The decision of this case turns solely upon the facts. We think no disputed question of law is involved in it.
The main questions of fact upon which the case must be determined are but two, viz:
1. Was^there a valid agreement entered into by the parties, whereby plaintiff becomes bound to convey the property described in the deeds and mortgage?
2. Were these instruments delivered to the defendants?
I. The record in this case is voluminous, and the evidence especially is unusually prolix. It is found in the depositions of twenty-five witnesses. These give'their testimony usually at great length, and a multitude of facts aud circumstances are rehearsed which the parties supposed had a bearing on the case. Many of them, however, have but a remote relevancy to the main issue, and many others none at all, while there are a great number that are directly pertinent. It is quite impossible in an opinion of reasonable length to discuss these facts, in order to support the conclusion reached by us; neither would such a discussion be profitable to the parties or the profession. Were we to follow the course presented by counsel and marked out in the evidence, we would be lead into a profitless rehearsal of the prior conditions of the parties, the fraudulent acts and practices of plaintiff’s husband, the violence and unlawful acts threatened and done by the defendants, etc., etc., all transpiring in connection with the property and transactions in controversy. While these have more or less bearing upon the case, space in our reports cannot be given them. We will content ourselves with a statement of our conclusions without an attempt to discuss the evidence.
The title of the property in controversy was in plaintiff, whose husband was under arrest for transactions growing out of his connection with a- bank, which, six or eight months before, had failed. The creditors of the bank were endeavor
The release is signed only by or for the creditors, and purports to give the terms of the settlement. Plaintiff did not sign it, nor does it appear that it was intended that she should. Now, the question is this: does this agreement of settlement, witnessed by those papers, bind plaintiff % "Without making any other point, we are satisfied it does not, for the simple reason that she never assented to it, and it does not contain terms and conditions upon which she agreed to the arrangement. It will be remembered that the release and bond which contain the written terms of the settlement were not signed by plaintiff, and it is not pretended that they were embodied in any other writing.
We are well satisfied that plaintiff assented to make the conveyances only on condition that her husband should be discharged
II. Upon the other branch of the case, involving the question of the delivery of the deeds and mortgages, we reach the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence is with the plaintiff.
That the instruments passed out of the hands of plaintiff’s attorney, who held them, and were received by the
A great number of witnesses testily to facts, which, it is claimed, show a delivery. Their testimony has more or less force, but, in our judgment, does not overcome the evidence of plaintiff. Some of the defendants testify to facts, as their admission that the settlement had failed, their acts inconsistent and in conflict with the terms of settlement, etc., etc., which support the plaintiff’s side of the case. But, as we do not propose to discuss the evidence, nothing further need be said concerning it.
III. The defendants moved to suppress the deposition of the plaintiff, on the ground that she refused to answer questions
IY. In the view we take of the case, no question arises as to the right of the intervening mortgagors to foreclose; the rights of the intervening cestvA que trusts are settled by our conclusions adverse to.the defendants. No other questions upon the law or the facts of the case presented in the abstract need be determined.
The judgment of the District Court is
Aeeikmed.