Griffeth v. Collins

• Decision Date: 01 January 1876
• Citation: 46 Tex. 217
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: THOMAS GRIFFETH ET AL v. HANKS & COLLINS.

46 Tex. 217

THOMAS GRIFFETH ET AL

v.HANKS & COLLINS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1876.

APPEAL from Cherokee. Tried below before the Hon. R. S. Walker.

Griffeth & Wedge sued Hanks & Collins on nine obligations, for the delivery of lumber, executed to one J. C. Seydel, for the purchase-money of a steam mill and fixtures, which were indorsed by Seydel to plaintiffs.

Defendants answered that the purchase by them was induced by the false representations to them, made by Seydel, that the mill was free from incumbrances, except in a small sum--about $600--which he would pay, when, in fact, the mill, &c., had been conveyed by Seydel, by deed of trust, to plaintiffs, before the sale to defendants, to secure the payment of a debt, and which deed of trust, having been enforced, by sale of said mill, the consideration failed, &c.

The court charged the jury (after stating the case) as follows: “Every false statement made, as to the facts, in making a contract, does not necessarily vitiate or avoid it; but where the matter of representation relates to a material subject of the contract, and forms an inducement to the making of the contract, it may have the effect wholly to annul and avoid the contract, unless, after the discovery of the fraud, the party who might complain, acquiesces in and adopts the contract, and proceeds to act upon it and recognizes its validity.

Applying these principles to this case, if you are satisfied, from the evidence, that Seydel made the representations and statements, alleged in the amended answer, to the defendants, and if you also believe that the existence or non-existence of a lien or incumbrance upon the property formed a material inducement or consideration to the defendants in entering into the contract for the purchase of the engine, &c., and that the defendants relied upon the fact that there was either no incumbrance, or only a small balance due upon the deed of trust, which could be readily provided against, by satisfying it, such a state of facts would constitute such a fraud as would avoid the contract, provided those representations in fact misled defendants into making a contract, which they would not otherwise have made, and provided further, that the representations were in fact untrue and false.

If, however, you believe, that before the final consummation of the contract, the defendants were informed that there existed an incumbrance upon the property, upon which a small balance was due, there could exist no fraud in the transaction, unless the amount in fact due, was in truth an amount exceeding considerably that which Seydel meant to imply. The term ‘small balance,’ is indefinite and relative, and you will necessarily, in construing the evidence, endeavor to judge, as best you can, as to the impression sought to be made on defendants, as to the amount due; and if you believe that Seydel meant to create the impression, and did do so, that the balance due was less than he believed the defendants would have been willing to take a risk against in buying, and if the balance due turned out to be in fact not the small balance which the defendants had reason to suppose it to have been, you will, in such case, find for the defendants.”

The...