TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Devoe v. Hall

Devoe v. Hall, 14 N.W. 124 (Iowa 1882)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Iowa · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 7, 1882
Judges
Day
Citations
14 N.W. 12460 Iowa 749
Headnotes
Evidence considered : practice on appeal.
Summary
Appeal from Union Circuit Court. The plaintiff claims of the defendants a balance alleged to be due upon a contract for the purchase of real estate, and asks a foreclosure of the contract, and a judgment for attorney’s fees stipulated for in the contract. The defendants admit the execution of the contract, but insist that they bought the land mentioned in the contract, in the month of December, 1874, for one thousand dollars; that an arrangement was made with plaintiff by which he was to take the title in his own name, and pay the purchase price, and defendants were to pay plaintiff one hundred dollars, to be added to the principal sum of one thousand dollars, and to pay upon that sum of eleven hundred dollars interest at the rate of ton per cent. That the one hundred dollars bonus or addition to the original contract was usury. That on the 30th of April, 1877, an accounting was had under the original contract, and the sum of $1,350.80 was found due, including the $100 of usury, and defendants made a further usurious contract with plaintiff for $1,486, in which was an added amount of $135.10 to the lawful interest. The defendants pray that no allowance be made for attorney’s fees, and that judgment be rendered against the plaintiff for costs. The court found that the original contract between the parties was one for the sale of real estate, and not for the loan of money, and that is was not usurious. The court further found that a bonus of ten per cent was placed in the face of the note, upon making the new contract of April 30, 1877, and that the contract was thereby rendered usurious. The court found there was due the plaintiff $1,072.40, and rendered judgment for that amount, with interest at six per cent from March, 1881, and a decree of foreclosure of the contract. The court also rendered a judgment against the defendants, in favor of Union County, for the use of the school fund, for $407.02. The plaintiff appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Day

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Day, J.

I. At the time the contract sued upon was executed, the eleven hundred dollars agreed to be paid for the land, with interest at ten per cent, amounted to about $1,350. The contract was executed for $1486. The evidence is eonflicting as to the manner in which this difference was made up. The defendants testify that it was obtained by adding a bonus of ten per cent to the amount then found to be due. The plaintiff testifies that it was made up by the insertion of several small sums which the defendants owed him. The testimony of the plaintiff, however, does not satisfactorily account for the entire difference. The court adopted the explanation of the defendants. We think the finding of the court is sustained by a preponderance of the testimony.

*750 II. The defendants insist that the court should have found that the original contract of December, 1874, was usurious, and that there is due the plaintiff only $669.15. The defendants ask that the judgment in favor of plaintiff be reduced to that amount. The defendants have not appealed, and hence are not entitled to a reduction of the decree. See Hintrager v. Hennessy, 46 Iowa, 600 ; Smith v. Wolf, 55 Iowa, 555; Casady v. Spofford, 57 Iowa, 237 ; Farr v. Reilly, 58 Iowa, 399 . The decree of the District Court is

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 11901: 11920: 11929: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Boatwright v. American Life Insurance Co.191 Iowa 253 (1920)
  2. Clayton v. Sievertsen87 N.W. 412 (Iowa 1901)
  3. Smith v. Knight55 N.W. 189 (Iowa 1893)
  4. Ottumwa Boiler Works v. M. J. O'Meara & Son224 N.W. 803 (Iowa 1929)

Most recent

  1. Ottumwa Boiler Works v. M. J. O'Meara & Son224 N.W. 803 (Iowa 1929)
  2. Boatwright v. American Life Insurance Co.191 Iowa 253 (1920)
  3. Clayton v. Sievertsen87 N.W. 412 (Iowa 1901)
  4. Smith v. Knight55 N.W. 189 (Iowa 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Hintrager v. Hennessy, 46 Iowa 600 (1877) 44
Smith v. Wolf, 8 N.W. 429 (Iowa 1881) 16
Farr v. Reilly, 58 Iowa 399 (1882) 7
Cassady v. Spofford, 57 Iowa 237 (1881) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list