Bell v. Hutchins
Decision Date | 19 January 1891 |
Parties | Bell v. Hutchins. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rescission or Deed—Fbaud—Polling Just.
1. Upon the trial of a suit in equity to rescind a sale of land, where specific questions of fact were submitted to the juryj it was improper practice for the court to submit also, over objection of counsel, the question of whether the sale should be rescinded or not, that being for the court to decide upon the special facts found by the jury in answer to the other questions submitted; but, inasmuch as the facts thus found by the jury are sufficient to authorize the decree made by the court, the judgment will not be reversed on this ground.
2. Polling the jury as to their verdict in a civil case is a matter of discretion with the trial judge which this court will not undertake to con trol; and he may grant a motion to poll them upon their answer to a specific question, as well as upon the whole verdict, but his refusal to do so is not ground for reversal.
3. Under the contract of sale, the plaintiffs were to be paid for the land partly in money, and partly in other land to be conveyed to them by the defendant. The jury, in answer to questions submitted, found that the defendant could not make a good title to the land he agreed to con vey, and could not fully compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of the land; that, at the time of contracting, no valuation was placed upon the plaintiffs' land; and that the conduct of the defendant constituted a fraud upon the plaintiffs. Held, that the decree for rescission was proper.
(a) An offer by the defendant to convey other lands of the same kind as those he had agreed to convey was not a compliance with his contract.
4. In addition to the parts of the record specified by the plaintiff in error in his bill of exceptions as material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, certain portions of the evi dence were sent upon the petition of the defendants in error. It appearing to this court that this evidence is superfluous and immaterial, it is directed that the cost of bringing it up be taxed against the defendants in error.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Polk county; Maddox, Judge. The following is the official report: "Mrs. Hutchins and Mrs.Camp, by their petition, alleged: In October, 1886, S. B. Bell bargained with them for the purchase from them of a farm in Polk county for the agreed sum of $12,000, to be paid as follows: $5,000 c*sh on taking possession; $1,400 in 12 months, with 8 per cent, interest; titles to 11 lots, specified by numbers, in the twelfth district of originally Appling county, containing 5, 390 acres of well-timbered land, these lots being valued in the purchase at $5,000; and titles to 15 acres of land in Florida, valued at $6,000. Relying upon the good faith and ability of Bell to comply with the contract, they allowed him to take possession of the farm in the latter part of 1886. and he took full possession thereof about December 15th. After he had gone into possession he failed to make thecash payment agreed, postponing it from time to time upon various excuses, and has only paid $1,800 of the cash payment agreed upon. Upon full investigation made for petitioners by their agent, A. A. Camp, of the title of defendant to the lots of land in originally Appling county, they are convinced that the titles are worthless, and that the deeds held by defendant conveying these lands are forged and fraudulent, and that defendant cannot make any titles thereto under which it would be safe for them to take possession. They are informed and believe that a certain party named holds the genuine titles to seven of the lots. They do not know who holds the title to the remaining four, but believe there are conflicting claims to them. When defendant was informed as to this matterbythem, he promised to give them good titles, but he has failed to do so, and, so far as they are informed and believe, is making no effort to do so. When they received convincing information that his titles were not good, they offered to modify the bargain, and, in lieu of title to these lots, to take from Bell his notes for $5,000,-the value placed upon the lots by him in the bargain; the notes to bear interest at 8 per cent., and payable at any time set by him within five years; but he rejected this proposition, still insisting that he would give them correct titles to these lots. He has failed to pay the $5,000 cash agreed upon, and to make titles to the land in Florida, and to execute his note for the deferred payment, and they have not executed to him any deed or bond or other obligation to convey the farm. He holds possession of the farm, is running and cultivating it, and will appropriate to his own use and probably incumber the crops thereon. They believe that, if he is solvent, he does not own sufficient property in Georgia to satisfy any judgment or decree they might obtain against him. They prayed that the contract be rescinded; that they be put in possession of the farm; and for judgment against defendant for whatever damages they might have suffered, or may suffer, because of his failure to comply with this contract; also for a receiver to take charge of the crops, for general relief, etc. They amended their petition, and further alleged: The price fixed upon the plantation by them sold to defendant was $15,-000, which they thought it was worth, and they were induced to sell it for $12,-000, because they were satisfied they could so manage the fine body of pine lands offered in the trade by defendant at $5,000 as to make theirplantation net them $15,-000 or more. The pine lands were heavily timbered, located close to the railroad, and the timber on them could have been sawed into lumber at a great profit, and by ordinary skill and energy they could have made more than the price fixed upon them by defendant in the trade. They would not have taken the $5,000, at which these lands were valued, in cash, because they expected to make a greater sum out of the timber on them, and their getting the pine lands at the $5,000 was the main inducement to make the trade with defendant, and without such inducement the trade would not have been consummated. At the time it was made, and throughout the negotiations, defendant represented to their agent that his titles to the pine lands were perfect, and when their agent asked to see the titles defendant told him they were in the hands of his agent, who lived in Florida, and neither petitioners nor their agent had any opportunity to examine the titles until after the trade was consummated, and they relied upon the representations of defendant that the titles were perfect, and did not know until after defendant was put in possession of their plantation that his titles were not good. His representation that his titles to the pine lands were good was fraudulent and false, and so known to defendant, and his deeds were all, or nearly all, forgeries; the titles to seven of the lots being held by others, and defendant not now attempting to defend his titles. He made these false and fraudulent representations with intent to deceive and cheat them; they were material to the consummation of the trade; were believed to be true by petitioners, and acted on by them. They tendered to defendant all sums that have been paid to them by him, and prayed that he account to them for rents for their plantation from the 1st of January, 1887.
To continue reading
Request your trial