Black v. Baskins

• Decision Date: 13 May 1905
• Citation: Black v. Baskins, 87 S.W. 647, 75 Ark. 382 (Ark. 1905)
• Parties: BLACK v. BASKINS
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

87 S.W. 647

75 Ark. 382

BLACK v. BASKINS

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 13, 1905

Appeal from Conway Circuit Court, in Chancery, JEPTHA H. EVANS Judge, on exchange of circuits.

Affirmed.

Affirmed.

F. N Bruce, for appellant.

Appellee was never the purchaser of the lands in controversy. Nor was he entitled to a reformation of his contract, there being no mutual mistake. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 648-9, 650; 39 Ark. 304; 80 F. 46; 43 N.E. 259; s. c. 146 Ind. 322; 50 S.W. 62; Bish. Cont. §§ 707-8; 142 U.S. 417; 66 Ark. 155; 50 S.W. 62. Laches would bar any such relief if appellee was really entitled to it. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 656-7; 18 Ib. 656; 42 N.E. 263, s. c. 146 Ind. 322; 19 Ark. 16. Where, owing to a mistake, the minds of the parties never really met, and no contract resulted, no information can be had. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 618 et seq.; 114 F. 395. Appellant had a right to and did rescind. 64 Ark. 228; 38 Ark. 174. Appellee is estopped by his acts and silence. 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 424 et seq.; 96 U.S. 544; 39 Ark. 174. 50 Ark. 116; 113 Mo. 257; 160 Mass. 111; 59 Ill. 470; 47 S.W. 153; 86 Am. Dec. 406; 47 Am. Rep. 394; 73 Mo. 310; 50 Ark. 116. The laches of appellee bars him. 145 U.S. 368; 91 U.S. 587; 116 U.S. 33; 56 Ark. 485; 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 126; 4 Am. & Eng. Dec. Eq. 280; 160 Ill. 563; 146 Ind. 322; 28 N.J.Eq. 467; 87 Ia. 686; 82 F. 396; 53 N.W. 118; 2 Md. Chy. 232; 19 Ark. 16.

Carroll Armstrong, for appellee.

Appellee was entitled to reformation. 50 Ark. 179; 51 Ark. 390; 71 Ark. 619. Appellee is not estopped. 65 Ark. 278. Appellant was a purchaser for a grossly inadequate sum, in bad faith, and with full knowledge of appellee's title; and is entitled to no protection. Bisph. Eq. 219.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Conway Circuit Court establishing the right of the plaintiff to a certain forty-acre tract of land, and divesting the title thereof from the defendant and vesting it in the plaintiff, Baskins.

The facts, briefly stated, are that one Coblentz was the owner of a tract of land in Conway County, which he sold in small tracts to different parties at different times. The parties to whom he sold seem to have been more or less ignorant of the locations of these different tracts, and in taking possession thereof a number of mistakes were made by them whereby they took possession of land not purchased by them. Among the parties who purchased from Coblentz was a negro named Perry. Coblentz agreed to sell him the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of a certain section for the sum of $ 200. Upon this contract he by mistake took possession of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the same section and cleared land and made other improvements thereon. Perry failed to pay for the land, and Coblentz sold the land to Baskins, the plaintiff in this action, for $ 280. In executing the bond for title Coblentz described the land as he had described it in the bond for title to Perry. But Baskins testified that he knew nothing about the numbers of the land, and in making the purchase he told Coblentz that he wanted to buy the Perry tract, meaning the tract of which Perry had possession, and that he understood that Coblentz sold him that tract. Baskins says he called the attention of Coblentz to the fact that Perry was still in possession of the land, and Coblentz informed him Perry was intending to move to the Indian Territory, and would give possession. Perry did give possession, and Baskins took possession of the land that he had purchased, and built a house, cleared land and made other improvements upon it. After he had been in possession about four years, and had paid all of the purchase money except $ 61, Coblentz sold the land to Black, the defendant, who induced the tenant of Baskins to attorn to him, and he got possession of the land in that way.

It is not disputed that Black, at the time he purchased this land from Coblentz, knew that Baskins was in possession claiming to have bought the same from Coblentz. There is no dispute about the fact that Baskins took possession of the tract that he intended to buy. He bargained for the Perry land, and took possession of the tract from which Perry removed. He agreed to pay $ 280 for this forty-acre tract, and paid all except $ 61, which he tendered, and Coblentz refused to receive it because he had then sold the land to Black. Black purchased the east half of the southeast quarter of the section, and obtained a deed from Coblentz to it for the sum of $ 100, whereas Baskins had paid over twice as much for half of this same land. This tends to show that Coblentz sold this Baskins tract to Black for a nominal price in order to get him to buy the other forty-acre tract. As Black had actual notice of Baskin's purchase, he is in the same position that Coblentz would have been had the land never been sold. So the main question in the case is whether the facts are such as entitled the plaintiff to relief against the heirs of Coblentz. It is admitted that Baskins thought he was buying the land which he now claims, but counsel for Black contend with much force that, although Baskins made a mistake, it was not a mutual mistake, or one that was shared by Coblentz, who prepared the title bond. But the chancellor has found that the mistake was mutual, and the evidence tends to sustain the finding. Perry, one of he witnesses introduced by the defendant, Black, and who first purchased this land from Coblentz, notified Coblentz that he had taken possession of the wrong tract, and Coblentz replied that it made no difference, as he could go ahead and pay it out, and that when he came to make the deed he would change the numbers of the land. The evidence shows that there was little if any difference in the value of the two tracts, and the testimony shows that after Coblentz discovered that Perry had taken possession of the wrong tract, he told him to go ahead and pay it out, and he would make him a deed to the land of which he had taken possession and improved. Now, this was before Coblentz sold the land to Baskins. When Perry failed to pay for the land, Coblentz offered to sell it to Baskins. Baskins told him that Perry was in possession of it, and Coblentz replied that Perry intended to leave, and would give possession. Baskins testified, and the evidence shows clearly, that in making the trade he and Coblentz had reference to the land of which Perry had possession. As we have before stated, the testimony of Perry shows that Coblentz prior to the sale to Baskins had been told that Perry had made a mistake, and had not improved the tract that he purchased. Baskins knew nothing of the mistake that Perry had made in taking possession of the land, but Coblentz did, and he must have understood Baskins, when he offered to purchase the Perry land, as referring to the tract of which Perry had possession, and of which, at the request of Coblentz, he gave Baskins possession. This testimony justified the chancellor in finding that Coblentz agreed to sell Baskins the tract of which he afterwards took possession, and which is involved in this action, and that by mistake Coblentz inserted a description of another tract in the bond for title which he executed.

But if we should concede that the testimony shows that Coblentz really intended to sell...