## Facts

- Catherine S. Bowlsby died intestate owning farmland.
- Catherine’s heirs included her husband, Benjamin Bowlsby, and their children (plaintiffs), each of whom took an interest in the land.
- Benjamin asked the children to deed their inherited interests to him for $1 each, representing that it would let him farm and manage the land more effectively for the family’s benefit.
- Benjamin orally promised the children that he would (1) hold the land during his lifetime and (2) at his death the land and its profits would go to the children.
- Benjamin had an attorney assist with the conveyances; the children did not consult counsel before signing.
- The children executed deeds transferring their interests to Benjamin for the stated consideration of $1.
- Benjamin later remarried and conveyed an undivided one-third interest in the land to his new wife, M. J. Bowlsby.
- The children sued in equity seeking return of their interests, alleging Benjamin never intended to perform his promises and made them only to induce the conveyances and defraud the children.
- Defendants demurred, asserting the statute of frauds barred enforcement of any oral trust or promise concerning land.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition; the children appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a petition states a claim in equity, despite the statute of frauds, when it alleges that a conveyance of land was procured by the grantee’s oral promises made with no intent to perform and made to defraud the grantors.
2. Whether such allegations permit a court to impose a constructive trust or other equitable relief rather than treating the suit as an attempt to enforce an oral express trust in land.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the order sustaining the demurrer and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the petition was not merely an effort to enforce an oral trust barred by the statute of frauds; it alleged fraud in the procurement of the deeds.
- Taking the pleaded facts as true (as required on demurrer), the allegations were sufficient to allow equitable relief such as a constructive trust and related remedies.

## Legal Principles

- An express trust in land generally cannot be proved or enforced based only on oral statements; the statute of frauds bars enforcement of a bare oral trust arrangement.
- The statute of frauds does not protect a party who obtains title by fraud; equity may grant relief when the conveyance itself was induced by fraudulent promises.
- A constructive trust may be imposed when a grantee secures a conveyance by promising to hold or reconvey property, while intending at the time of the promise not to perform it.
- Allegations of family confidence, lack of independent advice by the grantors, and the grantee’s use of superior knowledge may support the claim that the conveyance was procured by fraud rather than followed by a simple breach.
- On demurrer, the court assumes the petition’s well-pleaded allegations are true and asks only whether those facts, if proved, would justify equitable relief.

## Conclusion

Because the children alleged that their father obtained their deeds through intentionally false oral promises made to induce the transfer, the Iowa Supreme Court held the petition could support equitable relief (including a constructive trust) notwithstanding the statute of frauds, so dismissal on demurrer was improper and the case was sent back for litigation on the merits.


Gregory v. Bowlsby, 88 N.W. 822 (1902)