Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Mitchell

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JORDAN
• Citation: Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Mitchell, 197 S.E.2d 126, 230 Ga. 323 (Ga. 1973)
• Decision Date: 08 March 1973
• Docket Number: No. 27751,27751
• Parties: HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY v. Robert L. MITCHELL et al.

Page 126

197 S.E.2d 126

230 Ga. 323

HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY v. Robert L. MITCHELL et al.

No. 27751.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1973.

Jones, Bird & Howell, Earl B. May, Jr., Joseph W. Crooks, William G. Grant, Atlanta, for appellant.

Davis & Stringer, Thomas O. Davis, Decatur, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

JORDAN, Justice.

Humble filed its complaint in three counts against Mitchell and Cook in the DeKalb Superior Court, seeking reformation, rescission, or compensation for unjust enrichment, it being asserted in substance that Humble agreed to sell for $20,000 to Mitchell and Cook a tract of land determined to be surplus property and included within a larger tract on Turner Hill Road at Interstate 20, but that through mistake Humble deeded the larger tract to Mitchell and Cook, who denied the existence of any mistake or any claim for relief. The case proceeded to trial before a jury, and at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff the defendants moved for a directed verdict, which the trial judge sustained. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment on the directed verdict. Held:

Without purporting to restate all of the evidence, we note some of the circumstances which led to the alleged mistake and the present litigation. The testimony is conflicting regarding telephone conversations about the property, particularly in respect to identifying precisely what property was available for sale. On September 24, 1971, a representative of the plaintiff, referring to a telephone request concerning 'Surplus Property 5234,' forwarded a plat to one of the defendants. The plat bears the notation 'SS #5234' and is of the entire tract which this defendant insists is the land they intended to purchase. This tract consists of a rectangular portion labeled 'Service Station Property' and a smaller adjacent tract, approximately square, covered with slash lines, and marked 'Surplus Property,' the latter being the tract the plaintiff intended for sale. On September 26, 1971, this defendant, referring to 'Surplus Property 5234' submitted a written offer on behalf of a corporation 'for the property shown on the attached plat furnished by your office.' By letter dated October 12, 1971, addressed to this defendant, the plaintiff accepted an offer of $20,000, and agreed to convey the property, subject to various stated conditions. The signatures of the defendants appear thereon, under date of October 19, 1971, indicating acceptance. There is no description of the property in the letter except a reference to 'Surplus Property 5234, I-20 & Turner Hill Road, ...