Farrant v. Troutman
| Decision Date | 23 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 3502. |
| Citation | 141 P. 776,42 Okla. 418,1914 OK 289 |
| Parties | FARRANT v. TROUTMAN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the purchaser accepts a deed from his vendor, pursuant to a contract of sale, which contract represents that the incumbrance against the premises amounts to $1,280, and there is evidence tending to show that the incumbrance is $1,450 held, in an action on the contract, the representations relative to the amount of incumbrance, in the absence of fraud and of express or implied covenants, are merged in the deed.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from County Court, Stephens County; W. H. Admire, Judge.
Action by C. W. Troutman against H. W. Farrant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Gilbert Riley & Bond, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Burns & Sitton, of Duncan, for defendant in error.
On October 1, 1909, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract as follows:
"* * * Said parties herein have agreed to exchange their respective farms, situated in the state of Oklahoma and Missouri, being described as follows: The southwest quarter of section four (4) township one (1) south, range eight (8) west in Stephens county, Okla., being the property owned and controlled by party of the first part, which is transferred to the party of the second part and possession to be given by November first 1909, clear title and abstract less $1,280 the amount due Kiowa, Comanche and Apache Indians by virtue of an act of Congress passed June 28, 1906, for and in consideration of which transfer party of the second part agrees to transfer with clear title and abstract less an incumbrance of $500, shown on the abstract; on the 173 acres of land situated in section two (2) and three (3) in township thirty (30) range nine (9) west in Texas county and state of Missouri. * * *"
Afterwards Farrant executed his deed to the S.W. 1/4 of section 4, in township 1 south, range 8 west, in Stephens county, and said deed was accepted by Troutman on February 21, 1910, and after execution and acceptance of the deed, Troutman instituted suit on the contract to recover $170, alleged to be due by reason of a breach of said contract. The pivotal question upon which this case turns is whether the deed merges all prior contracts relative to the amount of the incumbrance in the absence of fraud and of express or implied covenants in the deed. The general rule is that a deed made pursuant to a contract of sale, which deed has been accepted, merges all prior agreements entered into between the parties relative to such sale. Bryan v. Swain, 56 Cal. 616; Martin v. Hamlin, 18 Mich. 354, 100 Am. Dec. 181; Douglas et al. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 127 Ill. 101, 20 N.E 51; West Boundary Real Estate Co. of Baltimore City v....
To continue reading
Request your trial