Exact performance of the escrow agreement is required. 28 Am. Jur. Escrow § 32 (1999); but see, Downey v. Gifford, 218 N.W. 488, 490 (Iowa 1928) (In a case where the "so-called" escrow arrangements were "quite defective as a strict escrow," substantial performance entitled the grantee to delivery even though actual delivery was not made to him but "wrongfully" refused). It is well settled in Iowa, that title to property placed in escrow does not pass until full performance of the conditions required by the escrow agreement.

Therefore the money embezzled could have belonged to no one other than Schlarf. The only case appellant cites as authority for a different view is Downey v. Gifford (1928), 206 Ia. 848, 218 N.W. 488. If we analyze its facts correctly, it could probably have been put on the ground of novation. The vendor released the vendee's obligation to pay an installment of interest due on a mortgage by accepting a bank's obligation to pay the vendor that installment with interest thereon.

Clearly there was a consideration for the promises and obligations of the plaintiff. See Fishbaugh v. Spunaugle, 118 Iowa 337, 92 N.W. 58; Lange v. Nissen, 208 Iowa 211, 225 N.W. 266; Downey v. Gifford, 206 Iowa 848, at page 858, 218 N.W. 488. The question of mutuality was raised in Meader v. Incorporated Town of Sibley, 197 Iowa 945, 198 N.W. 72, 74, in which case we stated:

Consideration might consist not merely in benefit to defendant, but inconvenience or detriment to or waiver by the bank. Downey v. Gifford, 206 Iowa 848. The defendant admits signing the note and intrusting it to her husband, who was the managing officer of the bank.