Campbell v. Bright
| Decision Date | 19 February 1906 |
| Citation | 87 Miss. 443,40 So. 3 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ETHEL MABRY CAMPBELL ET AL. v. HENRIETTA C. BRIGHT ET AL |
FROM the chancery court of Lee county, HON. WILLIAM J. LAMB, Chancellor.
Mrs. Bright and others, appellees, were complainants in the court below; Mrs. Campbell and another, appellants, were defendants there. From a decree favorable to complainants the defendants appealed to the supreme court.
The bill sought to specifically enforce a parol agreement by which the purchaser of land at a trustee's sale under a deed of trust promised, shortly before the sale, to recover the land to the grantor in the deed upon the payment to him, within a specified time, of the debt secured by the deed of trust. The bill was demurred to as being within the statute of frauds, but the court below overruled the demurrer.
Reversed and bill dismissed.
W. D. Anderson, and C. P. Long, for appellants.
The question involved is solvable by the following authorities: Clearman v. Cotton, 66 Miss. 467 (S.C., 6 So. 156); More v. Jordan, 65 Miss. 235 (S.C., 3 So. 737); Ragsdale v. Ragsdale, 68 Miss. 92 (S.C., 8 So. 315); Moore v. Crump, 84 Miss. 612 (S.C., 37 So. 109); Howland v. Blake, 97 U.S. 624; Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135; Rutland v. Brister, 53 Miss. 683.
W. L. & S. P. Clayton, for appellees.
The principle underlying a constructive trust, or trust ex maleficio, as it is sometimes called, is based on estoppel. Although the agreement or contract is, under the statute of frauds, unenforceable directly, still a court of equity will hold the grantee estopped--not to deny the contract, but to assert his title acquired in such a manner--and will not allow the grantee to set up the statute in support of his title. A court of equity, in other words, will hold the grantee estopped by his fraud in securing the property and constitute him a trustee, for the benefit of the grantor, as a convenient means of correcting the fraud.
In order that such a trust may exist, it is unnecessary that any confidential relationship should exist. 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), 1186.
This case falls precisely within the cases of Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135, and Clearman v. Cotton, 66 Miss. 467 (6 So. 156).
Reversed, and bill dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Williams
...be in writing. Section 3343, Code of 1930; Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135; Clearman v. Cotton, 66 Miss. 467, 6 So. 156; Campbell v. Bright, 87 Miss. 443, 40 So. 3; Palmer v. Spencer, 161 Miss. 561, 137 So. Pardue v. Ardis, 101 Miss. 884, 58 So. 769; Taylor v. Sayle, 163 Miss. 822, 142 So. 3......
-
Tchula Commercial Co. v. Jackson
...statute of frauds. Sections 3119 and 3124, Hemingway's Code; Rutland v. Brister, 53 Miss. 683; Clearman v. Cotton, 66 Miss. 467; Campbell v. Bright, 87 Miss. 443; v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135. II. So a parol agreement to execute thereafter a written contract required by the statute of frauds is ......
-
Foster v. Campbell
...Code (sections 3090-91, Code of 1906). The case of Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135 is controlling, and to like effect are Campbell v. Price, 40 So. 3; and House Gumble, 78 Miss. 529. Complainants below contended that title also vested in them because of the adverse possession within the limi......
-
Foster v. Campbell
...Code (sections 3090-91, Code of 1906). The case of Miazza v. Yerger, 53 Miss. 135 is controlling, and to like effect are Campbell v. Price, 40 So. 3; and House v. Gumble, 78 Miss. 529. Complainants below contended that title also vested in them because of the adverse possession within the l......