Ansley v. Bank of Piedmont

• Decision Date: 16 December 1896
• Citation: 21 So. 59,113 Ala. 467
• Parties: ANSLEY v. BANK OF PIEDMONT.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

21 So. 59

113 Ala. 467

ANSLEY v. BANK OF PIEDMONT.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 16, 1896

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

Action by O. E. Ansley against the Bank of Piedmont. From the judgment on demurrers to the answer, both parties appeal. Affirmed on defendant's appeal, and reversed on the cross appeal.

This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant, to recover an amount due upon four promissory notes, which were executed by the defendant. The defendant filed many pleas. The second, fourth, and sixth were as follows: "(2) For further answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendant saith that he did not make or execute the notes, which are the basis of this action, at the time alleged in the complaint but he made said notes on or about the 5th day of February 1890, and not on the 6th day of January, 1890, as alleged in the complaint; that said notes were drawn up by said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company, or by some agent of said company on the 5th day of February, 1890, and antedated, so as to bear interest and date from and on January 6, 1890, instead of February 5, 1890, the day on which they were executed, and defendant then signed said notes, and delivered them to said land company; and defendant avers that, by reason of the promises, and by reason of the fact that said notes were willfully and intentionally drawn so as to bear interest from January 6, 1890, instead of February 5, 1890, the day they were executed, and from which day they should have been made to draw interest, and were accepted by said Piedmont Land &amp Improvement Company, that the agreement to pay interest on said notes was usurious and void." "(4) Defendant, for further answer, says that the notes sued on were not made on the 6th day of January, 1890, as alleged in the complaint, but were made on or about the 5th day of February, 1890, and were given for the balance of the purchase money, to wit, two-thirds of the purchase money of two little lots of land, which are described in said notes, and which defendant was induced to purchase, on or about said 5th day of February, 1890, of the Piedmont Land & Improvement Company, the payee named in said notes, through and by the false and fraudulent representations of the officers or agents and directors of said company, made at the time of and prior to said purchase and the execution of said notes; that, prior to the execution of said notes, this defendant paid the sum of $166.66 on each of said lots, it being one-third of the purchase money therefor, which said payment was made on or about the 5th of February, 1890; that said lots are not now and were not worth at the time of said purchase, really, over $50 apiece, and this defendant would not have purchased them at all but for the false and fraudulent representations made by the officers and agents of said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company who had charge of the selling of said lots, and who sold them; that, at the time of and prior to the purchase of said lots by this defendant, said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company owned a great many lots in Piedmont, which it was desirous of and trying to sell; that said company, by its officers and agents, falsely stated to this defendant, and to the public generally, by advertisements in journals and newspapers, and in circulars and posted notices, for the purpose of inducing him and others to buy lots at high prices, that said company had secured and guarantied industries for said town, consisting of a rolling mill, a car-wheel foundry, a charcoal furnace, a 100-ton coke furnace, and that said company had $500,000 cash in hand with which to secure industries for said town, and that $1,000,000 would be spent in industries in said town as soon as men and money could build them; that said statements and representations and guaranties of said company were false and fraudulent, and were made by said company to induce this defendant and others to buy lots from it; that this defendant believed said statements and representations and guaranties, and did not know whether the same were true or false, but he relied on them, and the same were a material inducement to him to purchase said lots, and but for the same would not have purchased them; that said lots are not worth $50 apiece now, and were worth no more at the time of defendant's purchase of them than they are now, and that it was the statements, representations, and guaranties of said company, or their statements and representations that the building of the rolling mill, car-wheel foundry, and furnaces were guarantied, and their representations and statements that they had $500,000 cash in hand with which to procure industries for Piedmont, and that $1,000,000 would go into industries in Piedmont as fast as money and men could build them, that gave said lots a market value, and induced defendant to purchase them; that said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company is now, and has been for a long time, insolvent; that it did not have $500,000 cash in hand to secure industries for said town; that it had not secured a rolling mill, car-wheel works, coke furnace of 100 tons, and charcoal furnace; that said improvements were not guarantied, and have not been built; that $1,000,000 did not go into industries in said town, as it represented it would; that, if said industries had been built, they would have made valuable the lots purchased by this defendant as aforesaid; that said lots were not conveyed to defendant at the time he purchased them, and never have been conveyed to him, or to anyone for him, or on his account; that, on account of the worthlessness of said lots, and the false representations aforesaid of said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company, defendant has been damaged in the sum of $1,000, which he thereby offers to recoup and set off against the plaintiff's claim in this action." "(6) The defendant, for further answer to the complaint, says: That the notes sued on were made by him on the 5th day of February, 1890, and not on the 6th day of January, 1890. The said notes were given for the balance of the purchase money for certain lots of land, described in said notes, that were sold to the defendant by the Piedmont Land & Improvement Company on said 5th day of February, 1890, for which defendant paid said company, at the time of said purchase, the sum of $166.66 on each of said lots, it being one-third of the price agreed on for each of said lots purchased as aforesaid by defendant of said company. That, to induce the defendant to buy said lots, the said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company falsely and fraudulently represented to defendant that it had secured and guarantied the building of a 50-ton charcoal furnace, a 100-ton coke furnace, a rolling mill, a car-wheel foundry, and other improvements in Piedmont, where said lots are located, and where said company owned a great many other lots, and that it had $500,000 cash in hand with which to secure industries in Piedmont, and that $1,000,000 would go into industries in Piedmont as fast as men and money could build them; that defendant, believing that said representations were true, was thereby induced to buy, and did buy, said lots, and made said cash payments, and executed the notes sued on as aforesaid. But, in truth, said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company did not have $500,000 cash in hand to secure industries with for Piedmont; that said rolling mill, furnaces, and car-wheel foundry had not been secured and guarantied for Piedmont, and have not been built; and that said Piedmont Land & Improvement Company is now insolvent. That, had said plants and improvements aforesaid been secured and guarantied and built in said town of Piedmont, it would have greatly enhanced the value of the lots aforesaid purchased by defendant of said company; but, as it is, said lots are of but little value, and are not now, and were not at the time of said purchase, but for the prospective value given them by said false and fraudulent representations, worth the cash price paid for them by defendant as aforesaid. And so this defendant avers that, by reason of the false representations aforesaid, and the failure on the part of said company to make them good, this defendant has been deceived and damaged in the sum of $1,000, which he thereby offers to recoup and set off against the plaintiff to the extent of whatever sum is due on the notes sued on in this action." There were many demurrers filed to each of the several special pleas. These demurrers were sustained to each of the pleas, with the exception of the fourth and sixth, and were overruled as to these. The material facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion, as are also the rulings of the court. There was judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court in sustaining the demurrers to each of his special pleas. There was also a cross assignment of error by the plaintiff, calling into question the ruling of the court in overruling the plaintiff's demurrer to the fourth and sixth pleas.

Matthews & Whiteside,...