Fields v. Clayton

• Decision Date: 28 April 1898
• Citation: 117 Ala. 538,23 So. 530
• Parties: FIELDS v. CLAYTON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So. 530

117 Ala. 538

FIELDS v. CLAYTON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

APRIL 28, 1898

Appeal from chancery court, Blount county; Thomas Cobbs, Chancellor.

Suit by A. J. Clayton against A. E. Fields. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill and a motion to dismiss, the defendant appeals. Reversed.

Emery C. Hall, for appellant.

Inzer &amp Ward, for appellee.

BRICKELL C.J.

The bill was filed by the appellee, and its material allegations are that on the 17th day of November, 1894, he purchased of the appellant a described parcel of land, at and for the price of $250, payable in four installments, of $62.50 each for which he gave several promissory notes, maturing at different times. The appellant executed a conveyance to the appellee, having and containing covenants of warranty, and the appellee contemporaneously executed a mortgage to secure the payment of said promissory notes as they severally and respectively became due and payable. The appellee, under the conveyance, entered into possession and made valuable improvements, continuing in possession until some time in October, 1896. The parcel of land was incorrectly described in the conveyance and in the mortgage, and while in possession the appellee often requested the appellant to make a conveyance of said land by a proper description, with which request he failed and refused to comply. The appellee offered to surrender the land to the appellant, if he would surrender the notes and mortgage. On the 16th November, 1896, the appellant sold and conveyed the land (excepting a small part thereof) to one Mann, to whom the appellee surrendered possession, and who was in possession at the filing of the bill, the conveyance reciting: "This land is subject to redemption by A. J. Clayton." The appellant purchased the land of one Mary A. Tidmore, and at the time of the sale and conveyance to the appellee he had not obtained a conveyance from her. On the 6th December, 1895, the appellant accepted a conveyance from said Mary A. which did not include the small part excepted from the conveyance to Mann, and some time in 1895 she made a conveyance thereof to a person whose name is not stated, and who is averred to have been in the actual possession at the filing of the bill. The appellant had obtained judgments on two of the promissory notes falling due before the filing of the bill. The prayer is for a rescission of the contract of purchase, an account of the value of the improvements made on the land, and of the rents while appellee was in possession, the cancellation of the mortgage and of the outstanding notes given for the purchase money, the vacation of the judgments obtained on two of the notes, and for general relief. The appellant moved a dismissal of the bill for want of equity, and demurred assigning several causes. The motion and demurrer were overruled, and from the decree overruling them the appeal is taken.

The principles governing a court of equity in decreeing rescission of contracts relating to the sale and conveyance of land are well defined and settled. If, as in this case the purchaser enters into possession, under a contract executed by a conveyance with covenants of warranty, though the vendor may not have title, if fraud be not imputable to him, and he is not insolvent, or there is not some other independent equity, the purchaser is protected by the covenants of warranty, and the court will not intervene and decree a rescission of the contract of purchase. Burkett v. Munford, 70 Ala. 423; Meeks v. Garner, 93 Ala. 17, 8 So. 378; Parker v. Parker, 93 Ala. 80, 9 So. 426, and authorities cited. Construing the allegations of the bill most favorably for the pleader (as they must be construed in the determination of a motion to dismiss for want of equity), there was no fraud or misrepresentation in whatever of negotiation may have preceded or was coincident with the execution of the conveyance. Nor can the bill be taken as averring a want of title in the vendor. All that is averred is imperfection, error, or mistake in the description of the land as conveyed, the like imperfection or error existing in the conveyance through which the vendor deduced title. Such imperfections are not of infrequent occurrence in the conveyances of land. They do not impair or destroy title. They affect the conveyance, and may render it imperfect and inconclusive as a muniment or evidence of title, upon which legal remedies for the recovery of possession may be supported. 2 Devl. Deeds, § 1010. A court of equity, at the instance of a...