Hays v. Bonner

• Decision Date: 01 January 1855
• Citation: 14 Tex. 629
• Parties: THOMAS J. HAYS v. B. B. BONNER.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

14 Tex. 629

THOMAS J. HAYS

v.B. B. BONNER.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1855.

An allegation that the vendor fraudulently represented that he had a good title when in truth he had not the title is a sufficiently specific allegation of fraud.

See this case as to false representations as to title by the vender in a bond for title with covenant for special warranty.

Where a party in undertaking to sell land describes it as patented to another, he must be understood as contracting to convey the title of the patentee.

Where the vendor in a bond for title sued to recover the land on the ground of default in the vendee, the court said: “It does not appear that there was any improvement upon the land when the defendant went into possession, or that the plaintiff ever had any actual possession, or that he has or ever had any title or color of title giving even a constructive possession; but it does appear that the defendant has made considerable improvements upon the land. To permit the plaintiff to dispossess him and enjoy the fruits of his labor, honestly bestowed upon the faith of the plaintiff's representations in word and deed, without making any compensation for his labor, toil, and losses, would be the grossest wrong and injustice.”

It is immaterial that the vendor did not intend to practice any fraud or wrong upon the defendant; that he was mistaken in supposing he would be able to convey the title of the patentee. To permit him now, when it turns out that he cannot make title, to dispossess the vendee without compensating him for his losses occasioned by no fault of his own would operate a manifest fraud upon the vendee.

Appeal from Smith. Action by a vendor (Hays) against his vendee (Bonner) to recover the land on the ground that the latter refused to pay the purchase-money. Hays had given Bonner a bond for title, in which he “agreed to sell unto said Bonner or his assigns a certain tract of land, to wit, the north half of survey No. 614, &c., secured to R. G. Saunders,” (see patent and record in county surveyor's office in Smith county,) in consideration of receiving from Bonner three several promissory notes, and further agreed upon the full payment of said notes “to make or cause to be made to said Bonner, his heirs, executors, or administrators, a title to said land such as in him vested, warranting and defending the same from and against all persons claiming under him or by virtue of his said claim.” The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had fraudulently represented to him that he had a good title to the land, when in fact he had no title thereto; that he, defendant, had gone upon the land and made considerable improvements thereon; and he claimed that in case the contract was rescinded, the value of his improvements might be adjudged to him. Defendant also alleged a tender of the purchase-money and demand of a good title. It appeared that the title was not in the plaintiff, but in R. G. Saunders; that the land had been unimproved, but that the defendant went upon it and made considerable improvements thereon; that the defendant tendered the price of the land to the plaintiff, and demanded a good title, but that the plaintiff refused to do more than give a quit claim. The other allegations in the answer were also sustained by the evidence. It appeared also that Hays was the county surveyor, and that the vendee had but recently removed to this country.

The court charged the jury in effect that if, as an inducement to Bonner to make the purchase, Hays represented his title to be good and Bonner confided in such representation, then Hays could not recover. The court also charged that the reference in the bond for title to the patent to Saunders was...