Biles v. Walker

• Decision Date: 12 January 1920
• Docket Number: 20912
• Citation: 121 Miss. 98,83 So. 411
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BILES v. WALKER

83 So. 411

121 Miss. 98

BILES v. WALKER

No. 20912

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 12, 1920

October 1919

1. APPEAL AND ERROR. Court in determining the correctness of the decree of the lower court will accept the evidence of the successful party.

Where there is a conflict in the evidence the supreme court on appeal will acept the evidence of the successful party and determine from that as to whether or not the chancellor's decree will be upheld.

2. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. Bona-fide purchaser.

Under the facts in this case as set out in its opinion the court held that there was sufficient to put the defendant on inquiry and that he was not a bona-fide purchaser for value without notice.

3. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. Knowledge of purchaser's agent as to title is knowledge of purchaser.

Notice or knowledge by an agent who is examining the title or making a purchase for a principal acquired at such time, is notice to and equivalent to knowledge by such buyer.

4. ESTOPPEL. Giving agent apparent title to property not to be urged by purchaser with knowledge.

The rule that equity will not relieve the principal who has voluntarily placed the title to his land in his agent, where another must suffer by reason of such fraudulent act does not apply where the purchaser had knowledge of all the facts, or sufficient facts which, if followed up, would place him in possession of all the facts as to the real ownership of land.

5. ESTOPPEL. That purchaser took land in name of agent in order to sell more readily for better price not in itself fraudulent.

The fact that a real estate agent took the title to purchased land in the name of his agent solely for the reason that he could more readily sell the property, or sell it at a better price than if in his own name, was not in itself unlawful, or fraudulent.

Hon JOE MAY, Chancellor.

APPEAL from the chancery court of Bolivar county, HON. JOE MAY Chancellor.

Suit by U.S. Biles against E. Y. Walker. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

McGehee, Livingston & Farrabough and Wilson Armstrong, for appellant.

J. B. Harris, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE J. SYKES, J., being disqualified, took no part in the decision of this case.

IN BANC

OPINION

ETHRIDGE J.

Biles filed suit in the chancery court against E. Y. Walker to cancel a claim of E. Y. Walker to certain lands deeded to the appellee by one West, the former employee of Biles, conveying a half section of land worth approximately twelve thousand dollars for the sum of two thousand dollars and the assumption of a mortgage outstanding against the lands for two thousand, five hundred dollars. The bill alleged that the property belonged to Biles, and that the title had been vested in Wilroy as an employee and agent of Biles, and that the property had been conveyed to West another agent and employee of Biles, and that after West quit the employment of Biles the property was reconveyed to Biles by West, but the deed was not placed of record, but complainant was under the impression that it was of record until recently, and after said conveyance by West to Biles, West attempted to convey the property to E. Y. Walker, the appellee; that the pretended deed from West to Walker was dated the 6th day of July, 1918, and that West well knew that he had no title, and it further charges that Walker knew that West had no title, and was acquainted with the fraud attempted to be practiced upon Biles by West, and alleged that the said deed from West to Biles, reconveying the property, was lost; afterward this unrecorded deed from West to Walker was found, and an amended bill was filed, to which the deed was made an exhibit. Walker filed an answer, denying any knowledge of Biles' title, setting up good faith on her part in said transaction. The contract between Walker and West was made in July at which time Walker sent a check for one hundred dollars to West, which check was paid subsequent to the filing of the suit and lis pendens notice, but prior to service of process. After service of process further payment of $ 100 was made to West by Walker, but a deed was entered into, dated and acknowledged on the 6th day of July, 1918, acknowledged before a notary public of Warren county, and filed for record on the 9th day of July, 1918. The chancellor decreed for the defendant, and the question before us for decision is whether the facts warranted the...