Lee v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 20 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35477. |
| Citation | 195 Miss. 794,16 So.2d 30 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEE et al. v. BOYD et ux. |
Conner & Nobles, of Jackson, for appellants.
Hall & Hall, of Columbia, for appellees.
Appellees Boyd and wife, owned three hundred and forty acres of land in Walthall County. In March, 1936, "in consideration of $10 and other good and valuable considerations, cash in hand paid, by Homer P. Lee, Jr.", they conveyed to Lee by deed 15/16ths interest in and to all oil, gas and other minerals in said land. In March, 1937, Lee conveyed all of his said interest in the land to appellant, George H. Coates for a consideration of approximately $1 per acre. The bill in this case by the Boyds charges that the conveyance to Lee was procured by false and fraudulent representations, of which Coates was affected with notice when he purchased. On these grounds, it is sought to have both conveyances cancelled and set aside.
The cause was heard on bill, answers and proofs, resulting in the decree prayed for. Lee and Coates both appealed. Perhaps the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge that the conveyance from the Boyds to Lee was procured by the fraud of the latter. That of course was a question of fact. We are not sufficiently convinced that the finding of the chancellor was wrong, and therefore yield to his judgment. To set out the evidence on this issue would be of no benefit to the bench and bar. We therefore refrain from doing so.
The evidence was insufficient to affect Coates with such fraud at the time he purchased from Lee. The bill does not charge that Coates either participated in the fraud or had notice of it at the time of his purchase, and the evidence shows without substantial conflict to the contrary. 9 C.J. 1222, § 123; 12 C.J.S. Cancellation of Instruments, § 45. Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 777; Hafter v. Strange, 65 Miss 323, 3 So. 190, 7 Am.St.Rep. 659.
It is argued that the consideration passing between Lee and the Boyds ($10 and other valuable considerations) was so grossly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Johnson
...induced execution of a mineral deed is voidable); see also Guice v. Burrage, 156 F.2d 304, 306 (5th Cir. 1946); Lee v. Boyd, 195Miss. 794, 16 So.2d 30, 30 (1943); Sanders v. Sorrell, 65 Miss. 288, 3 So. 661, 663 (1888). A forged conveyance, on the other hand, is void ab initio and cannot pa......
-
Ltd. v. Bankplus
...induced execution of a mineral deed is voidable); see also Guice v. Burrage, 156 F.2d 304, 306 (5th Cir.1946); Lee v. Boyd, 195 Miss. 794, 16 So.2d 30, 30 (1943); Sanders v. Sorrell, 65 Miss. 288, 3 So. 661, 663 (1888). A forged conveyance, on the other hand, is void ab initio and cannot pa......
-
Lee v. Duncan, 39095
...since it is undisputed that he is an innocent purchaser from Lee for value without notice of any claims of appellees. Lee v. Boyd, 1943, 195 Miss. 794, 16 So.2d 30; Lee v. Duncan, Mrs. Daisy Duncan testified that she did not sign the deed and that she did not authorize anyone to sign her na......
-
Guice v. Burrage, 11579-11582.
...that it was never executed and is a cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs, it is the plaintiff's duty to prove its non-execution. In Lee v. Boyd, supra, on facts similar to those presented herein, the court held that the defendants could use their status as bona fide purchasers for value t......