Acree's Committee v. Blalock
| Decision Date | 24 November 1925 |
| Citation | 277 S.W. 464,211 Ky. 450 |
| Parties | ACREE'S COMMITTEE ET AL. v. BLALOCK ET AL. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.
Action by N. J. Blalock and others against R. E. Acree's committee and another, with defendants filing a counterclaim. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Holifield Gardner & McDonald, of Mayfield, for appellants.
R. N Stanfield and Lucian R. Smith, both of Mayfield, for appellees.
On October 1, 1919, N. J. Blalock conveyed to R. E. Acree a tract of 349 acres of land in Graves county, for which Acree agreed to pay $30,000. He paid $4,000 cash, assumed some liens upon the property, and executed notes for the remainder of the purchase, due in 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, with interest secured by a lien on the tract of land purchased, and also by a mortgage on another tract of land he owned. If the interest on the notes was not paid annually, then all the notes became due. In February, 1922, R. E. Acree was adjudged to be a person of unsound mind, and G. R. Acree was appointed as his committee. The notes executed by Acree for the land, and the lien notes which he had assumed passed into the hands of various parties, and this action was brought on February 23 1922, to enforce the lien on the land. G. R. Acree, the committee, and Annie Acree, the wife of R. E. Acree, filed an answer and counterclaim, alleging that R. E. Acree was of unsound mind when the deed was made, and that he was induced by undue influence to buy the land at an extravagant price. They prayed that the deed be canceled. The circuit court referred the matter to a jury. A large amount of proof was taken. The jury returned a verdict finding that R. E. Acree was of sound mind and that there was no undue influence exercised in the land transaction, but that he agreed to pay for the land more than it was worth at the time. On this finding of the jury the circuit judge entered a judgment for a sale of the land to pay the debts. The land was sold; the defendants filed exceptions to the report of sale; the exceptions were overruled; the sale was confirmed; and they appeal.
It is insisted for the appellants that the court erred on the trial in allowing N. J. Blalock to testify after the committee and Mrs. Annie Acree had testified for the defendants. But Blalock only testified to facts that were proven by a number of other witnesses, and, if we leave out entirely his testimony, it can have no effect upon the proper decision of the case. It was a suit to set aside an executed contract, and was exclusively of equitable jurisdiction. The verdict of the jury was only advisory to the chancellor, and in his discretion he might enter judgment upon the verdict or disregard it entirely, and enter such judgment as he saw fit under the evidence. Hill v. Phillips, 87 Ky. 169, 7 S.W. 917, 10 Ky. Law Rep. 31; Morawick v. Mortineck, 128 Ky. 155, 107 S.W. 795, 32 Ky. Law Rep. 971; L. & N. R. R. v. Tuttle, 180 Ky. 559, 203 S.W. 308; Fugate v. Walker, 204 Ky. 767, 265 S.W. 331. The circuit court, exercising his discretion, entered judgment sustaining the deed, and plainly he would have done this as well without the testimony of Blalock as with it.
It was shown by uncontradicted evidence that R. E. Acree, a few months before this, bought another farm which he sold at an advance of $2,000, and that when he made this sale at a profit he conceived the idea of buying the Blalock farm. Tobacco was selling at a good price then. Land had advanced rapidly all over the state. Acree, as soon as he got his deed, put the land in the hands of a real estate agent to sell, fixing the price at $100 an acre, evidently expecting the high price then maintained to continue or to get higher. But soon after this land declined in value, and he was unable to sell it at an advance or for near what he had paid for it. The proof of all the witnesses to the transaction is consistent and clear that he made the trade deliberately and was thoroughly at himself at the time, although he was an eccentric man and occasionally did foolish things. He owned...
To continue reading
Request your trial