Hayes v. Wyatt

• Decision Date: 20 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 2154.,2154.
• Citation: 202 S.W. 584
• Parties: HAYES et al. v. WYATT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 584

HAYES et al. v. WYATT.

No. 2154.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 20, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Arch A. Johnson, Judge.

Suit by L. G. Hayes and others against J. S. Wyatt. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Patterson & Patterson, of Springfield, for appellant. Fred O. Small, of New York City, for respondents.

FARRINGTON, J.

The plaintiffs procured a decree canceling certain notes and recovering money which had been paid, the notes having been delivered and the money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant for the purchase price of 117 acres of land in the southern part of Ozark county, Mo. The suit is in equity, seeking the rescission and cancellation of the contract, and, the court having granted the relief prayed for, defendant appealed.

A reversal is asked on three grounds: One goes to the weight of the evidence, and it is claimed that the court erred in holding that the defendant procured the sale of the land by false representations. The second alleges error in the court holding that the defendant was responsible for the statements of one R C. Groves, who had owned the land and was familiar with it, having sold it to the defendant, and whom defendant referred plaintiffs to for information during negotiations in the transaction out of which this suit arose. Thirdly, it is contended that the court erred in holding that `the plaintiffs could treat the contract as rescinded, because they delayed to disaffirm after having full knowledge for an unreasonable time.

Taking up the first assignment, we have carefully read the evidence submitted in the record before us, and find no reason upon which the contention could be upheld. The trial court made a finding of facts, and we will follow, in the main, that finding as a statement of the facts.

Defendant was the owner of 117 acres of land in Ozark county which he had procured in a trade with one R. C. Groves. He advertised the property for sale in a local newspaper as an improved farm, and in response thereto the plaintiffs, or some of them, went to him to inquire about purchasing the land. Defendant represented there were some 39 acres in cultivation, and that a large part of the tract was subject to cultivation, and that there was valuable timber on the land, and referred plaintiffs to Groves for a further description of the place, telling them that Groves had homesteaded it, lived on it, and was familiar with its qualities. Plaintiffs went to Groves, and he told them there was a dwelling house on the farm, that there were 39 acres in cultivation, and that 10 or 12 acres of this was bottom land. Both defendant and Groves told them that the premises were what was usually called a farm, had habitable buildings, with land in cultivation and other land subject to cultivation.

The fact was that the tract was a very rough piece of land lying along the break of a river with not to exceed one acre of bottom land. On the hill or bench probably 15 or 20 acres had been cleared, but had not been cultivated for some 14 or 15 years and had grown up in underbrush. The place was an old abandoned homestead. The roof of the house was caved in, the floor gone, the doors off, and the house was serving as a shelter for sheep and hogs. The farm was in no particular an improved farm, and the representations made concerning it by plaintiff and Groves were false. The evidence shows that defendant had the place on the market, and at least one of his agents he had employed to sell the land had inspected the land and knew its condition prior to this transaction with the plaintiffs.

The trade was made about July 15, 1915, the plaintiffs never having seen the land, but relying on the statements made to them by defendant and Groves. After the first of the year Charles G. Smith, one of the plaintiffs, expecting to move to the land, wrote to one Crumpley, an adjoining landowner, asking him as to its value, etc. Crumpley wrote a letter, which was received by plaintiffs in February, 1916, informing them there was no fence on the place, nor a house fit to live in, and that there was about 1 acre along the millpond and about an acre on the bench of the hill that would be worth anything at all. Nothing more seems to have transpired between plaintiffs and defendant until August, 1916, when L. G. Hayes, another plaintiff, a coach trimmer in the railway shops at Springfield, went to Ozark county to inspect the land, and he found that the place had been misrepresented. On his return he went at once to the defendant, and reported that the farm was worthless, and that he was not going to pay any more, and asked defendant what he was going to do about it, and that defendant said he would do nothing About the 1st of October the plaintiffs arranged with an attorney to represent them in the matter.

John Acker, another plaintiff, knew that plaintiff Smith received the letter from Crumpley, but nothing was done by him. On about the 1st of August, 1916, Acker was in defendant Wyatt's drug store for some medicine, when Wyatt spoke to him about the interest, and in the conversation Acker told Wyatt if the others had their interest money he had his.

The record clearly shows that plaintiffs Smith and Acker had the information which Crumpley gave them in February, 1916; that they made no complaint, nor did they take any steps to investigate further about the trade until some time in August, when Hayes went to see the land and ascertained the true condition; that Hayes on his return informed the defendant (in August) that he would do nothing further toward carrying out the trade, and that the farm had been misrepresented; and that the only act done by the plaintiffs toward recognizing or affirming the sale after receiving Crumpley's letter was when Acker told Wyatt, when Acker was in Wyatt's drug store, that he had his interest ready if the others had theirs.

The suit to rescind was instituted on December 20, 1916, in which no tender back of the deed was made. However, the petition on which this judgment is based was an amended petition in which the deed was tendered.

In the meantime, however, after August, 1916, and after defendant had received notice from Hayes that plaintiffs were not going ahead with the trade, and after the other plaintiffs had failed to pay any of the notes or interest, the defendant had foreclosed his mortgage, and had bought in the land, and actually owned it when the first petition in this case was filed on December 20, 1916.

As stated, we agree with the finding of the trial judge that under the evidence the plaintiffs had been defrauded by misrepresentations of defendant, Wyatt, and witness Groves, and hold that the court did not err in its judgment in this respect.

This leaves the contention that the court erred in holding defendant responsible for the statements of R. C. Groves, whereas it was not shown that Groves was interested in the sale, or that he acted as defendant's...