Case Name: William S. Sample et ux., Appellees, v. W. B Collins, Executor, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1890-10-10
Citations: 81 Iowa 23
Docket Number: 
Parties: William S. Sample et ux., Appellees, v. W. B Collins, Executor, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 81
Pages: 23–36

Head Matter:
William S. Sample et ux., Appellees, v. W. B Collins, Executor, Appellant.
1. Specific Performance: decree : satisfaction : appeal. The decree rendered herein provided for the transfer of certain real and personal property by the defendant to the plaintiff. Upon the suggestion of the court, the defendant surrendered possession of the property in question, pending proceedings on appeal, to the plaintiff, for the purpose of reducing the amount of the super-sedeas bond. Held, that there was not such a performance of the decree as to prevent an appeal.
2.-: evidence. The plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, brought this action against the executor of the will of the hus: band’s stepmother to secure the performance of an alleged parol agreement, made by the stepmother, during her lifetime, to convey to them certain real and personal property in consideration of care and attention to be given to her person and estate. The evidence showed that such care and attention was given the deceased until her death, but it amounted to little more than what might reasonably be expected from plaintiffs in view of the relationship of the parties. The value of the property in question was above ten thousands of dollars, and there was no evidence of any express agreement for its conveyance. The deceased, however, had been infirm for several years prior to her death, during a part of the time being incapable of taking care of herself, and a number of times gave expression of her gratitude to plaintiffs for remaining with and caring for her, and of her intention to leave said property to them for a home upon her decease. Held, that the evidence failed to show an agreement to c'onvey. [ Beck, J., dissenting.]
Appeal from Lee District Court. — Hon. J. M. Casey, Judge.
Friday, October 10, 1890.
Action in equity to enforce an alleged verbal agreement to. convey certain real estate, together with the furniture, etc., situated upon the same. The plaintiffs allege that, about ten years before her death, it was verbally agreed between them and Sarah M. Sample, deceased, that if plaintiff, William S. Sample, would remain in Keokuk with his family, and be near Sarah M. Sample when she needed any assistance, and would render her assistance in attending to her affairs, and nursing and caring for her when she was sick, she would provide for said William S. and Julia H. Sample upon her death; that Hugh W. Sample, the father of plaintiff William, and husband of Sarah M., departed this life March 31, 1869, leaving a last will, which was duly probated, whereby he gave to said Sarah M., his widow, a life-estate in the homestead, with remainder to William S. and S. S. Sample; that plaintiffs, without the payment of any consideration therefor, made a conveyance of said homestead to Sarah M. to enable her to have a fee-simple title, and to dispose of the same; that she thereafter sold said homestead for eleven thousand and live hundred dollars, and used part of the proceeds in purchasing the property in question; that on the settlement of Hugh W. Sample’s estate, when it was apparent that plaintiffs would receive nothing, Sarah M. Sample verbally promised and agreed with plaintiffs, in consideration of the conveyance to her of said homestead, and of the care, attention and assistance rendered, and to be rendered by nursing and caring for her while sick, and in attending to the purchase of property for her, and investment of money, she would convey the property in controversy, to-wit, lots 11’and 12, block 40, Keokuk, Iowa, with the furniture therein, to them, subject to a life-estate in herself ; that, in pursuance of said agreement, they performed services in nursing, caring for and looking after the business of said Sarah M. Sample, and fully performed the agreement on their part; that no conveyance was ever delivered to them. Wherefore they pray an order of court conveying to them said lots 11 and 12, block 40, Keokuk, Iowa, with the furniture therein. The defendant answered admitting that Sarah M. Sample sold the homestead for eleven thousand, five hundred dollars ; that she purchased the lots in question with a part of the proceeds, and used the same as her homestead to the time of her death, and that H. W. Sample was her husband; denies every x other allegation of the petition; and alleges that the agreement set out ip void because notin writing, and is barred by the statute of limitation. The defendant, by way of counterclaim, asks to recover three thousand dollars, paid by plaintiff on checks, and for twenty-five thousand, six hundred and fifty dollars, with interest, at ten per cent., as due on a contract of W. S. Sample to pay S. M. Sample ten thousand dollars of the stock of the National Bank of Keokuk, dated February 22, 1872. Plaintiff replied, denying the counterclaim, and alleging that the checks were drawn by S. M. Sample to get money out of the bank for her own use, which plaintiff drew and handed to her; that the check for two thousand dollars, July 20, 1887, was drawn to pay for lots 1, 2 and 3, block 102, purchased by her; that the check, November 9,1882, for three hundred dollars, was a gift to plaintiff ; that the amount claimed on the bond is barred by the statute of limitation ; that by the will of Sarah M. Sample the makers of said bonds were released. The court ordered the case transferred to the equity side of the docket, and tried as an equity case upon the specific performance of the contract alleged in the petition. The case was tried to the court, and a decree entered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.
W. B. Collins, for appellant.
J. II. Anderson, for appellees.

Opinion:
GiveN, J.
I. The appellees move to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decree of the court was fully performed by appellant. It appears, a:®davits died, that after the decision of the court had been announced, and the amount of the supersedeas bond was being considered, the judge suggested that, if the possession of the property was delivered over to plaintiffs' attorney, the amount would be five hundred dollars ; whereupon the amount of the bond was fixed at five hundred dollars, and the plaintiffs were given possession of the property, but no conveyance was made. This was not such a perfoi'mance of the decree as to prevent an appeal. It was simply a compromise by which to lessen the amount of the supersedeas bond necessary to indemnify the plaintiffs. The real estate which is the most important feature of the contention is still subject to the final decree that may be entered. The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.
II. We first inquire whether there was an agreement as alleged. There is no evidence of any negotiations or .conversations between the plaintiffs ^ ^ . , , A and Mrs. Sample as to such an agreement, and nothing to show that such an agreement was made, except as it may be inferred from the relations and acts of the parties, and declarations of Mrs. Sample. Mrs. Sample was stepmother of the plaintiff William, and until her death was upon intimate and friendly terms with him and his wife, Julia H. Sample. Mrs. Sample, deceased, was infirm for several years prior to her death, and for part of the time incapable of taking care of herself. . The only evidence directly tending to show the care and attention given to her by the plaintiffs is that of Mrs. Diver, who testifies that they were there a good deal. "I saw them doing more than I was. She was their stepmother. I do not know that I saw them doing anything. She had a servant. They were there ready to do, and so was I." Also that of Mrs. Chittenden, who says that they cared for her to the last, about five years. They were there often. Mrs. Chittenden also testifies that Mrs. Sample spoke about the care and attention that William and his wife had given her, and of her dependence upon them for such care. She said that William had talked of going away, and that she felt that he had staid here on her account as much as anything else ; that he had been everything to her, and done everything for her that it was possible for Mm todo. That at one time she offered to stay and assist her, and she said, " William and Julia will stay." About all the testimony as to William's attention to her business is that Mrs. Sample was in the habit of calling him to take her checks to the bank and get money for her. We do not understand from the testimony that he acted for her in any of the real-estate transactions mentioned. The agreement set out surely called for more attention to Mrs. Sample, and to her business, than is ordinarily .given gratuitously by friends and relatives, and yet it is not shown that these plaintiffs rendered the deceased any more care, attention or service than might have been expected from them, in view of their relations. During all these years Mrs. Sample was attended by one and part of the time two servants, both of whom have testified, and could have stated as to plaintiffs' care and attention to deceased beyond that which appears, if such care and attention had been given. Surely the care and attention shown to have been given not only fails to warrant an inference of agreement as alleged, but to show that such an agreement was performed.
The plaintiffs alleged, as part of the consideration for the promise to convey to them the lots in question, the conveyance by them of their interest in the homestead of EL W. Sample, deceased, without consideration. There is not only an entire absence of testimony to show such an agreement, but the written contract, in pursuance of which the homestead was conveyed, shows that it was upon consideration "of the just rights of dower of the said Sarah M. Sample in the estate of H. W. Sample, and that she does not oppose the probating of said will as written." It appears in testimony that on many occasions, when speaking about the plaintiffs and the property in question, Mrs. Sample, deceased, said that she intended it as a home for the plaintiffs when she was gone. Mr. Collier testifies: "Mrs. Sample told me that she had bought that property; that she felt that if she did not buy a home for Will he would not have one. She wanted a place for a home for William. He had been good to her. She wanted to buy it for a home for him." H. W. Sample, son of plaintiffs, testified that one day his father was talking to his grandmother about building a house, and "she said: 'Never mmd about that. Don't worry about that.' She did not expect to occupy the place long, and father should have it after she was through with it." To Mrs. Malcolm she said she wanted to buy the house so she could leave it to her son William for a home, that it was for a home for herself while she should live. Louise Hampton testifies that deceased said she thought she would get a home, and leave it to Mr. Sample's folks when she was through with it. Mrs. Hale testifies that Mrs. Sample frequently informed her of her intention to purchase a house for her own use during her life, and to leave it at her death to William, and gave as a reason that otherwise he would not have one; that her object in buying the house was to provide a home for William and his family after her death.
It will be observed that in these repeated statements of Mrs. Sample no mention is made of any agreement. She speaks of leaving the property so that it would go to plaintiffs at her death, because they had been kind to her, and would not otherwise have a home, but not because of any agreement. The plaintiffs ask specific performance of the parol contract, the existence of which is denied. We think the testimony fails to show that an agreement was made as alleged, and hence that the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief demanded.
III. We think defendant's counterclaim is sufficiently answered in the testimony, and certainly conclusively answered by the clause in Mrs. Sample's will, wherein she directs her executor to give to Samuel and W. S. Sample "acquittances and releases and receipts in full of all indebtedness and obligations to me, whether due or to become due, and the same shall be released and canceled."
Our conclusion is that the decree of the district court be reversed, and decree be entered dismissing the plaintiffs' petition, and with judgment that plaintiffs pay the costs. Reversed.