Bullard v. Brown

• Decision Date: 27 April 1908
• Citation: 46 So. 137,93 Miss. 104
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BENJAMIN F. BULLARD v. RICHARD T. BROWN ET AL

46 So. 137

93 Miss. 104

BENJAMIN F. BULLARD v. RICHARD T. BROWN ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 27, 1908

March 1908

FROM the circuit court of Lee county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES, Judge.

Ballard appellant, was plaintiff in the court below; Brown and another, appellees, were defendants there. From a judgment in defendants' favor, the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court.

The opinion of the court states the facts.

Affirmed.

Clayton & Clayton, for appellant.

The evidence shows that the appellee, R. T. Brown, in a conversation prior to the sale, fraudulently stated to appellant that appellees had a written contract with O'Neal by which O'Neal was to make certain improvenments on the land, and that appellees would guarantee performance of such contract. As the appellant believed this false statement of the appellee, and accordingly made exchange of his property with appellees, he should be entitled to a recovery of damages. 20 Cyc. 27, 128.

What weight is to be given to testimony of different witnesses and what inferences can logically, be deduced from the testimony are questions for the jury. Maston v. State, 83 Miss. 500; Ladnier v. Ladnier, 64 Miss. 368; French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386.

Guy Mitchell, for appellees.

Appellant's own testimony shows he has not been damaged, because he admits that the house and crib were built; and it is shown by the preponderance of the evidence that he was in no was injured by the fact that the wire fence was not constructed around the tract of land.

But, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed for the reason that the rights of the parties arising from the exchange of lands are limited by the terms of the deeds, and the deeds are silent as to all the matters whereof appellant predicates his claim for damages.

OPINION

CALHOON, J.

Appellant and appellees exchanged pieces of real estate owned by them respectively. The deeds, by which the exchange was made, were warranty deeds, each being the consideration for the other. While not material to the case before us, it may be proper to say that the appellant, Ballard, sold the piece of land he got by the exchange not very long afterwards at a profit of $ 450. Subsequently he brought this action of trespass on the case, in which he demands $ 500 damages, because he avers that "in order to induce him to make the trade the defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to him that they had a written contract with one O'Neal, by which O'Neal was to clear and put in...