Kimball v. West
| Decision Date | 01 December 1872 |
| Citation | 15 Wall. 377,82 U.S. 377,21 L.Ed. 95 |
| Parties | KIMBALL v. WEST |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri.
Kimball and Trask brought their bill in chancery against West, to rescind a contract for the sale of land of which they were purchasers from him. The contract was an executed one, West having conveyed the land—about four hundred acres in quantity—to the complainants' agent, who had conveyed to them, and the purchase-money ($22,000) having been paid. The deed of West, the defendant, contained a clause of general warranty.
The allegation mainly relied on by the bill to set aside the contract was that the defendant represented to the agent of the complainants, that the title to the land was good; that there was no incumbrance on it, nor adverse claim to it; when in truth and in fact an action of ejectment was then pending for one hundred and eighty-four acres of it against the defendant, in which judgment was afterwards rendered against him; that the land so recovered in the suit against the defendant was the most valuable part of the track, and without which the complainants would not have made the purchase; and that the defendant fraudulently concealed the existence of this suit, and represented the title to the whole to be perfect. On the question of concealment and fraudulent representation testimony was taken on both sides, which did not leave the matter free from doubt. This part of the matter, however, was unimportant in the view which this court took of the case.
It appeared from the record that before the cause in the court below came to a final hearing, the defendant purchased the outstanding and conflicting title to the one hundred and eighty-four acres, and tendered to the complainants such conveyances as made their title perfect. The court, therefore, dismissed the bill, but decided that the defendant should pay the costs of the suit.
From this decree of dismissal the complainants appealed.
Mr. R. T. Merrick, for the appellants:
There was confessedly misrepresentation by the vendor as to five-twelfths of the whole tract. On the ground of mere defect in quantity the purchasers have a right to be relioved of their purchase; or rather their no purchase. Can the vendor by coming in now, at the twelfth hour, and offering a good title, destroy this right? The purchasers may have bought for a special purpose. Presumably they did so. Suppose they bought for immediate resale on a high but falling market,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. U.S.
...mere ground that the patent was procured by fraud is not sufficient. Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 20 L.Ed. 501; Kimball v. West, 15 Wall. 377, 21 L.Ed. 95; Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U.S. 207, 24 112. Even though the patentee may have resorted to fraud in procuring the pate......
-
James W. Lynch & the Ponca City Land & Improvement Co. v. United States
...ground that the patent was procured by fraud is not sufficient. (Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 20 L. Ed. 501; Kimball v. West, 15 Wall. 377, 21 L. Ed. 95; Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U.S. 207, 24 L. Ed. 112.) ¶6 Even though the patentee may have resorted to fraud in procuring......
-
Burgess v. Corker
...does not change the rule, providing that we would be able to deliver title at the time called for in the contract. (Kimball v. West, 15 Wall. (U.S.) 377, 21 L.Ed. 95; 39 Cyc. 1410-1412, 1213, par. W. T. Stafford, for Respondent. Mutual mistake as to a material fact will avoid the contract. ......
-
Carter Coal Co. v. Litz
...held that the vendee's remedy must be on the warranty of title. Refeld v. Woodfolk, 22 How. 318, 327, 16 L.Ed. 370; Kimball v. West, 15 Wall. 377, 379, 21 L.Ed. 95; Max Meadows Land & Improvement Co. v. Brady, 92 Va. 71, 82, 22 S.E. 845; Thompson v. Jackson, 3 Rand., Va., 504, 15 Am. Dec. 7......