Houston v. Witherspoon

• Citation: 68 Miss. 190,8 So. 515
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Decision Date: 19 January 1891
• Parties: J. J. HOUSTON ET AL. v. C. V. WITHERSPOON

8 So. 515

68 Miss. 190

J. J. HOUSTON ET AL. v. C. V. WITHERSPOON

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 19, 1891

FROM the circuit court of Lafayette county, HON. WILLIAM M ROGERS, Judge.

The appellee, Mrs. C. V. Witherspoon, owned a plantation in Lafayette county, Miss. She resided in Louisville, Ky. In October, 1884, she made a written contract with one I. T Mason whereby she leased to him said plantation for five years from January 1, 1885, in consideration of a yearly rental of $ 500, and the tenant was in addition to pay all taxes. The lease contained a provision that a failure to comply with the stipulations of the contract would cause a forfeiture of the same.

In the year 1886, Mason made a crop of 42 bales of cotton, the value of his interest therein being more than $ 500. He also made a crop of corn, the value of which was also more than sufficient to pay the rent. During that year he purchased supplies and other merchandise from the appellants, Houston &amp Son, who were merchants and who knew of the tenancy, and that the crops raised by Mason were subject to a lien for the rent. In December, 1886, the cotton raised by the tenant was delivered to said merchants, and the proceeds were applied to the credit of his account with them, the corn being left on the place. On January 25, 1887, Houston & Son, supposing that they would probably have to pay the rent, took a trust-deed on the mules and farming utensils of Mason to secure the balance due them on account for supplies, etc. After that they notified him that they could not advance him further unless he could make arrangements that would be more satisfactory to them. Thereupon, on February 2, 1887, Mason wrote Mrs. Witherspoon, at Louisville, Ky., as follows:--

"Your postal to hand, and am sorry to say that I have not made arrangements as yet for money to pay your rent. The party who was to let me have money says now that it is impossible for him to get it, which is a disappointment to me as well as you. Should I fail to get the money, can you assist me by carrying me over until December? I know the contract between us is, should I fail to pay the rent the contract is then null and void. I have everything on the farm in good fix for making a crop, and with favorable season will come out safe. If you can carry me over for another year, you will confer a great favor; but should you insist I shall have to sell my mules and . . . . to pay you, and throw up my contract; but hope you will trust me for to make another crop. Hoping to hear from you soon, I am, respectfully, etc."

At this time there was on the place sufficient corn, none of which had been purchased by Houston & Son, to pay the rent. This corn was used up by Mason. Mrs. Witherspoon was not aware of the fact that they had purchased and shipped the cotton, nor that there was any corn on the place, and she believed all the statements in the letter of Mason to be true. On February 6, 1887, she responded thereto as follows:--

"Your letter has been received, and while it puts us to a great deal of inconvenience not to have the rent, we have gone over our affairs and think that by strict economy we may be able to get through the year if it is possible for you to send us $ 100 by the first of March. After meeting the March rent (we pay the first of every month), the second quarter's salary comes in time to meet the April dues. So rest easy about your affairs. Of course you will pay interest on the money due last January, and not paid until next, for I am very sure we will be compelled to go into bank before the year is out, and then will have of course to pay bank rates for the use of money. I would not under any circumstances have you sell your mules and farm utensils. I have heard a great deal about the distress in Mississippi, and Mr Witherspoon knows a great deal about the trouble of money matters among the farmers in his travels through the country preaching."

This letter Mason showed to the agent and manager of Houston &amp Son, and thereupon they, thinking from the letter that the matter was arranged, and relying upon that letter, extended to Mason a further credit of time and supplies for the year 1887. Mrs. Witherspoon knew nothing of her letter being shown to the agent of Houston & Son; nor did she know that they had bought the cotton, or that there was any crops remaining on the place. There was no communication whatever between her and Houston & Son.

In December, 1887, she ascertained the fact that they had purchased the cotton, and that there was sufficient corn on the place to pay the rent at the time Mason wrote her the letter above quoted. There was no communication between Mason and Mrs. Witherspoon except the foregoing. Houston & Son received all the property covered by the trust-deed given them by Mason, and the proceeds of the sale of the same did not pay the debt for additional advances made by them in 1887.

Mason failed to pay the rent to Mrs. Witherspoon, and in 1888 she brought this suit against Houston & Son, for the $ 500 rent with interest thereon, the value of the cotton received by defendants subject to her lien for the rent of 1886. On a plea of not guilty, the cause was tried before the court without a jury upon the foregoing facts, which were agreed to as being all the testimony.

Judgment for plaintiff; defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Edward Mayes, for appellant.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous for two reasons:--

1. Because the court held that the letter of Mason was a fraudulent one as to Mrs. Witherspoon.

2. Because it was held that appellants were affected by the fraud.

In considering the first question, it is necessary to analyze the letter. If its statements are substantially true then there was no fraud. The whole correspondence is not produced. This letter refers to a previous communication. As all of the correspondence addressed to plaintiff was not produced, the presumption is that if the previous letter had been introduced it would not sustain the charge of a fraudulent representation in...