Leland v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 01 October 1912
• Citation: Leland v. Morrison, 92 S.C. 501, 75 S.E. 889 (S.C. 1912)
• Parties: LELAND v. MORRISON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 889

92 S.C. 501

LELAND v. MORRISON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 1, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.

Action by H. G. Leland against J. B. Morrison.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

The following is the decree entered by the trial court:

"The object of the action is to declare an instrument of writing to be a mortgage, which on its face appears to be a deed absolute.The action was begun in January, 1911.

"The defendant married the plaintiff's sister, and thus there is added to the issue an element of delicacy and difficulty.

"A history of the transaction is this: In December, 1890, the plaintiff bought from one Sanders about 2,000 acres of land near McClellanville, and known as the 'Doe Hall' plantation.The price agreed to be paid was $6,000, but the plaintiff paid down only $1,200, and made a mortgage for the balance of $4,800.Of the cash payment, one-half thereof was borrowed from one Walker.On February 2, 1892the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to sell him a one-half interest in the land.The agreement was reduced to writing, and it recites that the balance of $4,800 was due and payable in four equal annual installments of $1,200 each, payable January 1, 1892, January 1, 1893, January 1, 1894, and January 1, 1895.

"The agreement further recites that of the $1,200 which fell due January 1, 1892, the defendant had paid $600, and he agreed to pay $600 each year thereafter.

"The agreement further provided that, in the event either party to it should fail to meet his own annual payments of $600, then the other party might meet it and hold the interest of that party as security for its return.

"January 6, 1893, the plaintiff executed to the defendant a mortgage on the said plantation to secure a debt expressed to be $2,200.October 24, 1894, the plaintiff executed to the defendant an absolute deed to the said plantation.The consideration expressed in the deed was $3,000.The deed recites that there was then due on the purchase-money mortgage to Sanders the sum of $1,800 and interest.

"The same day the deed was made the defendant addressed to the plaintiff a letter, which is the basis of this action.That letter declares that upon the payment by Leland to Morrison, on or before December 1, 1896, of one-half of all such amounts as Morrison may have paid, or may thereafter pay, on the purchase price of the said plantation, with interest on such payments at the rate of 7 per cent., then Morrison would convey to Leland a one-half interest in the plantation.This letter and the deed are in the handwriting of the Honorable Henry A. M. Smith.

"January 3, 1894, Leland and Morrison leased the plantation to one C. Henry Leland for turpentine uses, and they were to receive therefor $140.March 11, 1895, Morrison leased to H. G. Leland the same premises for the same uses and for the same price.January 29, 1896, Morrison leased to H. G. Leland the same premises for turpentine uses, and for cultivation in agriculture, for the price of $140 for the turpentine and for 800 pounds lint cotton for farm cultivation.

"December 16, 1896, Morrison addressed to Leland a letter, and therein made a statement of the account betwixt them.The plaintiff largely rests his case on the terms of this letter.Therein Morrison charges Leland with one-half the principal of the purchase price and interest thereon, and credits him with those sums received by him from Leland in 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896 under the aforesaid lease.The general statement of the account is thus:

To sums paid by Morrison on price & taxes ..	$2,816 00
To balance due Sanders on price ............	1,008 00
	---------
	$3,824 00
By cash paid by Leland ......................	741 00
	---------
To balance due by Leland to Morrison .......	$3,083 00

"In the letter Morrison wrote that Leland would owe him that much, 'should we go back to the agreement of 1892,' which agreement was expressed in the Smith letter.In the letter Morrison also wrote: 'Will it be possible for you to sell your half for over $3,000 and save anything for yourself?Let me hear from you at once.'The record does not disclose a written answer to this letter of December 16, 1896.

"Mr. Morrison took exclusive possession of the plantation in 1897, and has made valuable improvements upon it.He has erected thereon a mansion house worth $3,000 or $4,000.He has felled trees, drained the land, and brought it into cultivation.At the outstart there was only about 100 acres of arable land.Now there are some 225 acres open to cultivation.Mr. Morrison has underdrained the land at a cost of $1,000, and he has fenced it and built tenant houses and barns.He has cut 3,000,000 feet of timber worth $3,000.

"It is conceded that in 1890 the premises were barely worth $6,000, if as much as that.As a part of the history of the country, it is known that lands throughout the whole state began to rise in value about 1900, and since then have steadily appreciated.Now the plaintiff fixes the value of Doe Hall at $20,000.The defendant fixes the value at not less than $10,000.I have no doubt but that fact, in a measure, accounts for this controversy, both the demand and the refusal of the demand.

"The parties submitted their differences to a friendly board of arbitrators; but its conclusion is not set up as a bar, and throws no light on the issues now made.

"The plaintiff concedes that one-half the land belongs to the defendant; that his one-half is liable to contribute a moiety of the purchase price of $6,000; and that the defendant is entitled to have the improvements he has made on the premises, but that the defendant is chargeable with the timber he gathered from the premises and for the rents which he received in excess of his share.

"The issue of fact which lies at the threshold of the controversy is the meaning of the Smith letter.The defendant's contention is that this letter amounted only to an option, extended by Morrison to Leland, to buy a one-half interest in the premises at any time before December 1, 1896.The plaintiff's contention is that it was more than that, and was a declaration, in effect, which modified the title, made at the same sitting and absolute on its face.

"If the Smith letter is considered in connection with the fact that Leland was the owner at outstart, that he first made a contract to let Morrison have a one-half interest, that he thereafter mortgaged the land to Morrison to save him from loss, that the last payment to Sanders was due January 1, 1895, that after December 1, 1896, and on December 16, 1896, Morrison acknowledged in writing that Leland was the owner of one-half, then the conclusion is irresistible that the two men were tenants in common, each of a half.The fact is fixed, not altogether, it is true, but in large measure, by the writings of the defendant, and there is no escape from that conclusion.

" Beyond question, on December 16, 1896, by the defendant's own confession in the letter of that date, Leland had then the full right to pay $3,083 and accept a deed for a one-half interest in the land.That was 16 days after the expiration of the alleged option.It is true that defendant now denies that Leland had this right of redemption; but the letter fixes the fact against the present denial, and the present denial gives pregnant meaning to the letter.

"If the defendant had that right on that day, when and how did he lose it?

"Rights are reciprocal.The defendant then had the right to sell Leland's one-half and have the proceeds applied to the payment of his half of the Sanders debt, and have the plaintiff's equity barred.The defendant had the right for 20 years thereafter.The lapse of that time alone would have defeated the right.The plaintiff had the corresponding right to wait 14 years thereafter to enforce his right.The long lapse of time, to wit, 14 years, operates only to throw a doubt over the fact of plaintiff's contention; but the proper evidence dissolves the doubt.

"The defendant objected to the parol testimony of the plaintiff, which tends to prove that the deed was not intended to be absolute.I think the testimony was competent.It does not vary the terms of the written instrument; but it tends to well explain and confirm the evidence of all the writings together that the parties intended that Leland should be half owner of the plantation.Shute v. Shute,82 S.C. 264, 64 S.E. 145.

"The defendant relies upon a verbal and strict construction of the letter of December 16, 1896, to show that Morrison was not fully minded to go back to the contract of 1892, and that at best he proposed a case for Leland's action on the hypothesis that they did go back to the contract of 1892.But the letter in its entirety--all of it--proves that Morrison was there mindful of Leland's right to pay up and take legal title.And this view is strengthened when the history of the transaction from first to last is recalled.

"There is no room to apply the defense of estoppel to the plaintiff.And I do not understand that such a defense is seriously, if at all, made.But if it is, the testimony does not sustain it.Leland had no knowledge that Morrison did not have.Morrison had done no act, at Leland's suggestion or acquiescence, which will work injury to him.Morrison has not been misled.If anybody has been injured by the transaction, it is Leland.The improvements made by Morrison were made on his own land, and of right.

"Now, am I able to sustain the plea of laches?That doctrine is applied to prevent the commission of a wrong.

"The plaintiff's long delay in prosecuting his...