Bostick v. Haynie

• Decision Date: 25 January 1896
• Citation: 36 S.W. 856
• Parties: BOSTICK et al. v. HAYNIE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 S.W. 856

BOSTICK et al. v. HAYNIE.

Court of Chancery Appeals of Tennessee.

January 25, 1896.

Appeal from chancery court, Davidson county; Thomas H. Malone, Chancellor.

Bill by A. G. Bostick and another against J. B. Haynie to rescind a contract for the sale of lands and for other relief. From the decree rendered complainants appeal. Modified.

J. P. Atkinson and W. G. Brien, for complainants. E. A. Price, for defendant.

NEIL, J.

The original bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of rescinding a contract for the sale of lands, and an amended bill was filed claiming homestead out of a portion of the lands involved, as alternative relief, in case rescission should not be granted. The facts are as follows: In the early part of December, 1891, the complainant A. G. Bostick, a colored man, residing at that time in Williamson county, this state, and owning a small farm near Triune, in that county, wishing to remove to Nashville, and, with a view to that purpose, to exchange his farm for city property, applied to B. E. Matthews, a real-estate agent in Nashville, to carry out the plan for him, and returned to his home in Williamson county. Matthews undertook the work, and between the 8th and 10th of December, 1891, he addressed a letter to complainant, at Triune, informing him that he had succeeded in getting on foot the arrangement desired. Complainant, upon receipt of this letter, promptly came to Nashville, and was informed by Matthews that he had perfected a plan whereby complainant could exchange his farm for a house and lot on North Hill street in Nashville, but that, in order to carry out this plan, it would be necessary for the complainant in the trade to take five "uptown" lots belonging to the intending seller at $5 per front foot. To this the complainant assented, on the assurance from Matthews that the lots were worth the purchase money, $1,350, and that he (Matthews) would be able to sell them at a profit of $600 or $700, and upon his further assurance to the complainant that, if he would let him (Matthews) manage for him, in a few years he would make complainant a rich man. The complainant trusted the whole matter implicitly to Matthews, and did whatever Matthews told him to do; and, while complainant does not seem to have a very clear idea of what the trade was, he seems to have understood that his farm was to be valued at $1,500, and the Hill street property at $1,600, and that one should be exchanged for the other, leaving him in debt for the Hill street property to the amount of only $100, and that he should, in some way — his understanding of the matter is not clear — buy the uptown lots in the trade. The key to the whole matter is that he trusted Matthews entirely, and let him arrange the transaction as he wished. So, when the deeds were drawn, they were so worded that complainant was made to purchase the Hill street property, paying thereon $600 of the value of his farm, and assuming a debt of $1,000, an incumbrance thereon due to one Brown; and $900 of the value of his farm was placed upon the uptown lots as a part payment thereon, and he executed his notes for $350 balance of the purchase price of the lots. These "uptown lots," so called, were of little actual value, being liable to overflow, and sometimes being 10 feet under water, but seem to have had a speculative value among trading men. The result of the transaction thus far was, through the management of the real-estate agent, that the complainant, instead of exchanging his farm for a house and lot in Nashville, had exchanged the bulk of it for some overflowed lots, and only about one-third of it, or a little over, for a house and lot incumbered to the amount of two-thirds of the value of his farm, and with no means, or reasonable expectation of means, on his part, to lift the incumbrance. The chief dependence for paying this indebtedness was the expected exercise of the real-estate agent's skill in working off the uptown lots; but, like many other speculative schemes, it failed to turn out as hoped for. The resultant loss of the property in course of time was inevitable, but the manner of this loss will be stated further on.

To return, however, to the deed. It appears that the complainant can read, but that the deed was neither read to him, nor did he read it at the time the trade was consummated; owing, as we believe, to his entire reliance on the real-estate agent, and his confident belief that this agent would so arrange matters as that the original purpose would be carried out, — the exchange of his farm for a house and lot. It is clear that the complainant had no adequate conception of the situation he was in until about eight or nine months after the trade was made. It was in August, 1892, when he learned the true state of things. This was when Mr. Brown's trust deed matured. Mr. Brown called upon the complainant for the payment of the debt. Thereupon the complainant, not understanding the situation, consulted counsel, and had the deed explained to him. Realizing the state of things, he then endeavored to borrow some money from a building and loan society to meet the debt, but was unable to do so. Mr. Brown then advertised the house and lot for sale, and did sell it at public auction. At this sale under the trust deed the complainant became the purchaser, but was unable to comply with the terms of the sale. The matter rested in this condition for a while, and at last the following plan was fallen upon by all concerned. Complainant A. G. Bostick and his wife, also a complainant herein, joined in a deed with their vendor, defendant, J. B. Haynie, to said Brown, on the 2d day of December, 1892, wherein they conveyed to him the said house and lot. In this arrangement the deed of trust was canceled and settled. Brown, being then the owner of the property, reconveyed it to the complainant, December 3, 1892, taking his notes therefor, maturing at intervals, with J. B. Haynie's indorsement. The instrument provided, in substance, that, upon failure of complainant to pay any of the notes, all should mature, and the vendor, Brown, should have the right to sell the property for payment of the notes. Complainant having failed to pay the notes, the property was sold, pursuant to the instrument, by Mr. Brown, and at this sale Mrs. Lulu Haynie became the purchaser at $1,100, and complainant has been compelled to vacate the property. The defendant, Haynie, had nothing to do in making the trade, except in so far as Matthews was his agent, and except in executing the deeds to the Hill street lot, and to the uptown lots. The whole trade was worked up by Matthews, and he received, or undertook to receive, commissions from both sides; that is, Haynie paid him $100 commissions, and he had the complainant's note for $75 as commissions, but, when the matter turned out so badly, he surrendered this note without payment. It is proper to state, also, that the complainant has...