Crawford v. M'Donald

• Citation: 12 Va. 189
• Parties: Crawford v. M'Donald
• Decision Date: 24 March 1808
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

12 Va. 189

Crawford v. M'Donald

Supreme Court of Virginia

March 24, 1808

[Syllabus Material]

On an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the Staunton District, dismissing a bill filed by the appellant against the appellee.

On the 15th of March, 1797, one Joseph Tribble entered into an agreement, under seal, with the appellee M'Donald whereby, in consideration of 200 dollars paid him, he acknowledged to have bargained and sold to the said M'Donald one moiety of a tract of military land, in Kentucky, containing 800 acres, and agreed to convey to him the other moiety at his election within two years, on his paying the like sum. At the same time Tribble delivered to him a writing purporting to be a grant of the land, from the proper authority to a certain Joseph Brock, together with certificates as to its quality and the goodness of the title.

On the 3d of April, 1798, M'Donald, in consideration of 400 dollars, assigned his interest in the aforesaid agreement to Crawford, in the following words indorsed thereon: " I assign the within obligation, with the benefits arising therefrom, to the Rev. Edward Crawford, of Washington County and State of Virginia, being for value received, without recourse. Witness my hand and seal, this third day of April one thousand seven hundred and ninetyeight. John M'Donald." (Seal.)

Two penal bills, for 200 dollars each, were executed by Crawford to M'Donald, as the price agreed to be paid him.

Judgment having been obtained on one of those bills, Crawford filed his bill, praying an injunction; alleging that the grant for the land was forged, as well as the certificates in relation thereto; stating that he had reason to suspect that M'Donald was apprised of the fraud at the time of the agreement; and suggesting, though not very distinctly, that he was bound beyond the terms of the writing between them.

The defendant, M'Donald, in his answer, denying all fraud, or knowledge of fraud on his part, at the time of the agreement stated that the proposition to purchase came from Crawford himself, who, after having examined all of the papers, was perfectly satisfied as to the goodness of the title, expressed a wish to take the bargain " off his hands," and manifested great solicitude to become the owner of the land. He further stated, that it was expressly agreed between them, that he was not to be liable in any event; that Crawford was to take the papers as he saw them, and that the words " without recourse" were introduced into the assignment to exonerate him from all responsibility.

Several depositions were taken on both sides. The grant with the certificates annexed were clearly proved to have been forgeries: but there was no evidence that M'Donald knew or suspected any fraud; nor did it appear that he was to be liable in any event. On the contrary, some of the witnesses proved it to have been the understanding of the parties that the words " without recourse" in the assignment, were sufficient to release M'Donald from any future claim in consequence of it, and prevented the necessity of a special agreement in writing to that effect, as was desired by him.

The Chancellor, on a hearing, dismissed the bill; and Crawford appealed to this Court.

Decree affirmed.

Call for the appellant. The only question arising in this case, is, what is the effect of the words " without recourse," in the assignment on the title-papers?

The papers are proved to have been forgeries; and the inquiry is whether those words are to be so understood, that Crawford was to take the land running the risk of prior titles, or whether he was to guarantee...