Hunt v. Davis

• Decision Date: 27 March 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37442,37442
• Citation: 45 So.2d 350,208 Miss. 710
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HUNT v. DAVIS et al.

Page 350

45 So.2d 350

208 Miss. 710

HUNT v. DAVIS et al.

No. 37442.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, in Banc.

March 27, 1950.

Butler, Snow & O'Mara, Jackson, Snow & Covington, Meridian, for appellant.

Broach & Ethridge, Meridian, Arthur G. Busby, Jr., Waynesboro, Frank Clark, Waynesboro, for appellees.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Bill was filed by Hunt to remove certain alleged clouds upon his title to one-half the minerals under the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 9 North, Range 9 West. These clouds consist of a mineral deed from Davis to Clark and a mineral lease from Clark and Davis to Reynolds and Wedemeyer. The answer included a cross-bill by the defendants to cancel the title of Hunt to one-fourth the minerals. The chancellor entered a decree dismissing the cross-bill and awarding relief to Hunt. A rehearing was later held under amended pleadings stressing the allegation of a unilateral mistake. The chancellor set aside the former decree and entered a decree dismissing the bill and granting relief under the amended cross-bill allowing Hunt a refund to the extent of the interest Davis 'intended' to convey, and damages. Hunt appeals.

The situation which developed was this: Hunt, who was not theretofore acquainted with Davis, sought out a mutual friend who in 1938 accompanied him to the home of Davis and offered to buy a one-half mineral interest in some two hundred acres of land. To this, Davis agreed, and the price paid was $100, or $1 per mineral acre. The deed was thereupon drawn up, using the description in tax receipts procured by Hunt, and it conveyed 'an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in and to all the oil, gas and other minerals of every king and character in or under' the described two hundred acres. It was later disclosed that Davis did not own all the minerals in the eighty acre tract first above described, but only one-half thereof. Thus, the deed conveyed all the minerals he owned therein.

Davis contends that his intention was to convey only one-half of all the minerals he owned. Hunt maintains that he bought and paid for one hundred mineral acres, or an undivided one-half mineral interest in all the lands. Testimony was adduced to support these respective views. The chancellor found that 'Mr. and Mrs. Davis did not intend to convey all their mineral interest under this particualr tract,' but also found that there was not sufficient evidence that Hunt knew Davis owned a one-half interest in the eighty acre tract and made no representations in that regard; that he did nothing to prevent Davis and his wife from reading and examining the deed which they executed; and that Hunt's information upon which he had the deed written was procured from tax receipts covering the land as such.

There is therefore eliminated any consideration of mutual mistake, or fraudulent representation such as was controlling in Tillery v. Jones, Miss., 43 So.2d 650, and the narrow point for decision is the effect of a unilateral mistake on the part of Davis. In this connection, while the chancellor found that Davis did not intend to sell all his minerals on this tract, the mistake could well have been not that he did not intend to sell one hundred mineral acres but that he overlooked the extent of his residual interest. Support for this incidental view is found in the final decree by which Davis was required to refund to Hunt $20 representing a reduction of his interest therein from one-half of one-fourth, on the same basis of $1 per mineral acre.

Appellee has documented his claim to a partial reformation or rescission upon the basis of unilateral mistake with great industry and resourcefulness. Many authorities from other jurisdictions support his equitable claim. We do not pass these lightly by but examine the extent to which this Court has applied the doctrine. Recognition of the doctrine was given in Terre Haute Cooperage Inc., v. Branscome, 203 Miss. 493, 35 So.2d 537, 540, where we cited with approval Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, 4th Ed. Vol. 2, p. 175, as follows: 'it has been said that equity would never give any relief from a mistake, if the party could by reasonable diligence have ascertained the real facts; nor where the means of information are open to both parties and no confidence is reposed; * * *'. It was further recognized that there may be cases where relief may be proper if 'enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable', yet only...