Chaplin v. Korber Realty Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1924
• Docket Number: No. 2780.,2780.
• Parties: CHAPLINv.KORBER REALTY, INC.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

29 N.M. 567

224 P. 396

CHAPLIN

v.KORBER REALTY, INC.

No. 2780.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

March 8, 1924.

Syllabus by the Court.

A mistake of a vendor in the sale price of land, not occurring through want of care or the exercise of diligence, is a defense to a suit for specific performance, and the plaintiff will be denied such relief where it can be done without injustice to him.

The equitable remedy of specific performance is not granted as a matter of absolute right, like the right to recover a judgment at law, but only in accordance with equity and good conscience, and it is never granted where to do so would be harsh, inequitable, contrary to fairness and against good conscience.

Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Hickey, Judge.

Action by William Chaplin against Korber Realty, Incorporated. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A mistake of a vendor in the sale price of land not occurring through want of care or the exercise of diligence is a defense to a suit for specific performance, and the plaintiff will be denied such relief where it can be done without injustice to him.

Heacock & Grigsby, of Albuquerque, for appellant.

E. W. Dobson, of Albuquerque, for appellee.

BRATTON, J.

Korber Realty, Incorporated, a corporation, owned a number of different properties situated in the city of Albuquerque which were for sale. Albert Korber, vice president of the company, was somewhat unfamiliar with the respective prices placed upon such properties, and therefore prepared a list of them with their respective prices set opposite each of them. The appellant's wife called upon Albert Korber, and inquired with regard to the price of certain lots situated on North Third street. Being unfamiliar with such price, he referred to such list, and through mistake, advised her that it was $1,350. The actual sale price, as well as the price shown on the list referred to, was $2,600, the error occurring in Korber looking at the figures set opposite some lots situated on North Fourteenth street. This came about in casting his vision to the right of the descriptions of the properties and to the figures. In doing so, he dropped one line and read the price set opposite the lots situated on North Fourteenth street instead of the price set opposite the lots in question. The appellant's wife departed without any further negotiations, and on the following day, appellant's son called upon Albert Korber, and delivered to him a check in the sum of $350 as a cash payment upon said lots, for which a receipt was issued and delivered, and it was then mutually agreed that the remaining $1,000 should be paid 30 days thereafter when the deed was executed and delivered. Within about an hour thereafter Albert Korber had occasion to again look at the list in question, and then for the first time discovered his mistake. He immediately advised the appellant thereof, and tendered him back the check, which appellant declined to accept, saying that he wanted to see his wife first. The following day, Korber left the check at appellant's store. At the end of the 30-day period, the appellant transmitted $1,350 in currency to the appellee's store, with a written demand for a deed conveying the lots. These were immediately returned to the appellant, with a refusal to execute such deed, and this suit was thereafter filed to enforce specific performance of the contract. The facts constituting such mistake were fully pleaded as a defense.

The trial court found, in effect, that the mistake occurred; that it was a material one, and resulted in the minds of the parties failing to meet; that it was not caused by negligence or carelessness, and that to enforce such contract would be harsh, inequitable, contrary to fairness and against good conscience, and would permit the appellant to gain an unfair advantage from the mistake of appellee's agent and representative. Specific performance was denied.

[1] 1. The controlling question in the case, and the one most vigorously argued by counsel, concerns the effect of such a mistake as was made here; that is to say, whether it can constitute a defense in an equitable action seeking specific performance of such a contract. It seems well settled that one of the elementary principles of equitable jurisprudence is that a court of equity will grant its affirmative or defensive relief, as the circumstances may require, from the consequences flowing from a mistake of fact made by one of the contracting parties, when it is brought about by ignorance, misapprehension, or misunderstanding of the truth, but without negligence, resulting in an act or omission done or suffered erroneously. Such a mistake, however, must be a material one, which concerns and involves the subject-matter or the terms of the contract, and not merely incidents of the transaction. It must be so material that the court can say that such party would not have entered into the agreement had he known...