Tugel v. Tugel
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Dtóbuque District Oowrt. Action in chancóry. The petition charges that defendant, Frederick Tugel, who is the son of petitioner, in 1868, borrowed of him $500; that afterwards petitioner demanded of defendant a note and mortgage to secure the debt, and defendant executed a writing in the German language, whi&h he represented to plaintiff to be the security required; that the petitioner is old and infirm and unable to read writing; that he relied upon the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dtóbuque District Oowrt. Action in chancóry. The petition charges that defendant, Frederick Tugel, who is the son of petitioner, in 1868, borrowed of him $500; that afterwards petitioner demanded of defendant a note and mortgage to secure the debt, and defendant executed a writing in the German language, whi&h he represented to plaintiff to be the security required; that the petitioner is old and infirm and unable to read writing; that he relied upon the representations of his son to the effect that the paper was just what he wanted, and would secure the pay-, ment of the money…
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.
— We are well satisfied by the evidence of the fraudulent character of the conveyance by defendant Tugel to his co-defendant Tagen; that it was without consideration, and made to defeat the claim of plaintiff. The evidence is equally clear in support of the charges made in the petition as to the misrepresentations and fraud of the son in relation to the writing executed to the father, and of his agreement to make and deliver a mortgage to secure the debt. The effort of the son to support his defense, that the writing was not executed by him, entirely fails. The indebtedness of the son is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Orman v. MerrillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'Brien v. PutneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1880
- McVey v. ManattSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Balch v. Ashton & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1880