Gardner v. State, 40992
| Decision Date | 26 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 40992,40992 |
| Citation | 108 So.2d 592,235 Miss. 119 |
| Parties | Mrs. Winnie W. GARDNER et al. v. STATE of Mississippi et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
W. B. Fontaine, Jackson, John K. Keys, Collins, Sweep S. Taylor, Jr., Jackson, Victor J. Ford, Raleigh, for appellants.
Wells, Thomas & Wells, Martha Gerald, Jackson, L. D. Pittman, Raleigh, Alexander and Alexander, Jackson, O. B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellee.
Appellants, being the heirs at law of D. A. Wilkinson, deceased, and those claiming under them, filed their bill to confirm title to the surface rights and a one-fourth undivided interest in and to the oil, gas and other minerals to 160 acres of land in Smith County. The defendants filed a cross-bill seeking to have the title to their respective interests in said lands, not necessary to here state, confirmed and to cancel all claims of the appellants as clouds on their title. The chancellor dismissed the original bill, adjudged that the appellants had no interest in the lands or minerals and confirmed title in the appellees as their respective interests appear in the final decree.
D. A. Wilkinson owned the land and a one-fourth undivided interest in the minerals on June 16, 1944, on which date he conveyed to Robert York, whose successors in title are among the appellees, an undivided one-fourth interest in the oil, gas and other minerals in said 160 acres of land here in dispute and other lands, said deed purporting to convey 60 mineral acres under other lands, or a total of 100 mineral acres.
On August 17, 1945, Robert York, grantee in said deed, filed suit in the District Court of the United States, Southern District of Mississippi, charging that in order to induce and persuade the said York to purchase the said 100 acres of minerals, the defendant, D. A. Wilkinson, fraudulently represented to York that he, Wilkinson, was the owner of said lands and minerals in fee simple, and with intent to cheat and defraud York, the said Wilkinson tendered to York a forged certificate of title purportedly certified to by a lawyer that the title to said 100 mineral acres was good in D. A. Wilkinson; that relying upon the certificate of title and false representations of the said Wilkinson, York paid Wilkinson $1,500 for said 100 mineral acres and a deed purporting to convey said interest was executed and delivered to York. The complaint further charged that instead of obtaining 100 mineral acres, the said York 'had only obtained a good and merchantable title to 40 mineral acres,' (being an undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals under the lands in dispute in this suit); that as to the 60 mineral acres under other lands than that involved in this suit, the said Wilkinson had already conveyed all of the minerals to other persons. York alleged that he was damaged to the extent of $1,800 actual damages and $5,000 punitive damages. Wilkinson was duly summoned to appear in the federal court to answer the suit of the said York but defaulted and the judgment of the federal court was in the following words:
'Default Judgment
'This cause came on to be heard upon the complaint of the plaintiff and the court finding that the defendant, D. A. Wilkinson, has been personally served with summons in this cause in the manner and for the time required by law, and that he has wholly failed to answer or to appear herein but has in all things made default; and it further appearing that this court has full jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of said action; and, from the evidence offered, that the plaintiff is entitled to the following judgment:
'It Is Ordered And Adjudged That the plaintiff, Robert York, do have and recover from the defendant, D. A. Wilkinson, the sum of $1800.00 actual damages sustained by the plaintiff together with $700.00 punitive damages for the wilful wrongs and injuries inflected upon the plaintiff by said defendant, being the aggregate sum of $2500.00 together with interest thereon at the legal rate from this date upon paid and all costs of this action, for all of which let execution and other proper process issue.
'Ordered And Adjudged, this 5th day of November, 1945.'
This judgment obtained by York against Wilkinson was enrolled in the circuit clerk's office of Smith County and nothing was paid thereon. When the present suit was filed on July 28, 1957, nearly twelve years after the rendition of the judgment in federal court and many years after said judgment had been barred by the statute of limitations, the complainants tendered into the registry of the court a sum sufficient to pay said judgment.
On June 18, 1945, D. A. Wilkinson and wife executed a deed of trust to R. S. Tullos, trustee, to secure an indebtedness due the Bank of Raleigh of $300 and other money that might be advanced, conveying in trust the land involved in this suit. This deed of trust was duly recorded. D. A. Wilkinson thereafter died on July 9, 1946. On August 31, 1946, the said deed of trust was foreclosed and the land was purchased at the foreclosure sale by F. S. Huff. On November 2, 1946, F. S. Huff conveyed said lands to Charles E. Strahan, one of the appellees in the present suit, who was adjudged by the court below to be the owner of the surface rights to the land.
As to the one-fourth undivided interest in and to the minerals under the lands involved in this case, appellants base their claim thereto on the contention that the filing of the suit in federal court by Robert York against D. A. Wilkinson was an equitable rescission of the mineral deed and in equity revested the title to the undivided one-fourth interest in the minerals under the subject lands in D. A. Wilkinson.
Briefly stated, appellants contend that since York sued Wilkinson for $1,800 plus punitive damages and recovered $1,800 actual damages and $700 punitive damages, it is not consonant with equity that York recover more than the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crook Motor Co., Inc. v. Goolsby, Civ. A. No. WC 84-72-D-D.
...and (9) its consequent and proximate injury. Franklin v. Lovitt Equip. Co., Inc., 420 So.2d 1370, 1373 (Miss.1982); Gardner v. State, 235 Miss. 119, 108 So.2d 592, (1959), quoting 37 C.J. S. Fraud § 3, p. 215. Furthermore, all elements of fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence......
-
Smith v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...605 So. 2d 777, 780 (Miss. 1992); Shell Oil Co. v. Mills Oil Co., Inc., 717 F.2d 208, 214 (5th Cir. 1983) (citing Gardner v. State, 235 Miss. 119, 108 So. 2d 592, 594 (1959); Holland v. People's Bank and Trust Co., 3 So. 3d 94, 100 (Miss. 2008). These elements must be proved by clear and co......
-
Martin v. Winfield
...(7) his reliance on its truth, (8) his right to rely thereon, and (9) his consequent and proximate injury. Gardner v. State, 235 Miss. 119, 130, 108 So.2d 592, 594 (1959); see Stringfellow v. Stringfellow, 451 So.2d 219, 221 (Miss.1984) (citing Gardner on this issue); Johnson v. Brewer, 427......
-
Puckett v. Rufenacht, Bromagen & Hertz, Inc.
...And his consequent and proximate injury.Shell Oil Co. v. Mills Oil Co., 717 F.2d 208, 214 (5th Cir.1983), citing, Gardner v. State, 235 Miss. 119, 108 So.2d 592, 594 (1959).4 Although the Wasnick case "is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of [the Ninth......