Edwards v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 11 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-1161,5-1161 |
| Citation | 298 S.W.2d 336,227 Ark. 345 |
| Parties | W. B. EDWARDS et ux., Appellants, v. James P. JOHNSON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Don Steel, Nashville; Shaver, Tackett, Jones & Lowe, Texarkana, for appellants.
C. E. Blackburn, Walnut Ridge, for appellees.
In 1951 the three appellees sold to the appellants, W. B. Edwards and his wife, certain lots and blocks in the city of Nashville, a vendor's lien being retained to secure the unpaid balance of the purchase price. Upon the buyers' failure to make the last two payments, totaling $1,000, this suit was brought by the sellers for the foreclosure of their lien. By answer and cross-complaint the defendants sought damages on the ground that the sellers had misrepresented the quantity of land being sold. The chancellor found the proof insufficient to establish the charge of fraud and accordingly entered a decree for the plaintiffs.
One of the three appellees, James P. Johnson, and their real estate agent, Oscar J. Pate, acted for the sellers in making the sale. Pate had attempted to sell the tract for a former owner and was under the impression that it comprised thirteen acres. It is clear enough that he so described the land to Edwards, although the tract actually contains only about four acres. We are not convinced that Johnson himself misrepresented the acreage, but of course the sellers are responsible for misstatements on the part of their agent.
After examining the land Edwards agreed to pay $3,400 for it. He made a down payment of $400 on August 4 and moved into the house on the tract three days later. The deed had to be sent away for a grantor's signature and was not delivered until six or eight weeks later. Edwards says that he then complained of the deficiency in acreage and was assured by Johnson that the matter would be corrected. He indicates that he relied upon similar assurances in paying the first installment of $2,000 upon the purchase money debt. Johnson insists that he merely promised to verify the fact that the deed described all the land that the sellers owned and meant to convey. Both Edwards and Johnson seem to have testified with candor; their controversy is really due to Pate's misunderstanding of the true acreage.
In trying the case de novo we find two obstacles in the way of the appellants' insistence that they are entitled to a reversal. First, we cannot say with confidence that Edwards' reliance upon Pate's misrepresentation has been established by the weight of the evidence. Edwards makes the statement that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkansas Dept. of Correction v. Glover
...outside the usual scope of the employment. See Crouch Funeral Home v. Crouch, 262 Ark. 417, 557 S.W.2d 392 (1977); Edwards v. Johnson, 227 Ark. 345, 298 S.W.2d 336 (1957). However, the court in Crouch dismissed the proposition that an order directing an employee to do something outside the ......
-
Allard v. Al–nayem Int'l Inc.
...Allard presented the trial court with cases from other jurisdictions to support his interpretation of Burton. See Edwards v. Johnson, 227 Ark. 345, 298 S.W.2d 336, 337 (1957) (“[Where] [t]here is nothing to indicate that the parties dealt in terms of a fixed price per acre without reference......
-
Allard v. Al-nayem Int'l Inc
...Mr. Allard presented the trial court with cases from other jurisdictions to support his interpretation of Burton. See Edwards v. Johnson, 298 S.W.2d 336, 348 (Ark. 1957) ("[Where] [t]here is nothing to indicate that the parties dealt in terms of a fixed price per acre without reference to t......
-
Burk v. Hefley
...contention has merit, the chancellor's decision must still be affirmed because of an absence of proof of damages. In Edwards v. Johnson, 227 Ark. 345, 298 S.W.2d 336 (1957), the seller described the land as containing thirteen acres, although it actually contained only four. There was a hou......