Leonard v. Roebuck

• Decision Date: 13 June 1907
• Citation: 152 Ala. 312,44 So. 390
• Parties: LEONARD v. ROEBUCK ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

44 So. 390

152 Ala. 312

LEONARD v. ROEBUCK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 13, 1907

Appeal from Chancery Court, Jefferson County; A. H. Benners Chancellor.

Action by Lurena Roebuck against John F. Leonard. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John Vary, for appellant.

W. K Terry, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The bill was filed by Lurena Roebuck against John F. Leonard, and alleges, in substance, that on the 30th of May, 1906 defendant went out to the house of complainant, and offered to purchase from her 20 acres of land, a part of the 80 acres described in the bill, which complainant owned; that he offered her $35 for this 20 acres, which she agreed to accept; that defendant presented her with a deed to sign which she thought was for the 20 acres, but which was really a warranty deed to the 80 acres; that he told her she was signing a deed for only 20 acres of the land; that, relying upon the representations of defendant, she signed said deed, thinking it was only for 20 acres, when in fact it was a conveyance of all her interest in the entire 80 acres; that she did not read over said deed, and would not have understood it, if she had read it, but that she relied entirely upon the representations of defendant in the matter; that defendant thus fraudulently induced her to sign said deed, as detailed above; that $35 was a grossly inadequate price, even for 20 acres of said land; that said tract was worth $20 per acre when she executed the deed, and is worth that sum now.

She further avers, that before the commencement of the suit, she offered to pay defendant the sum of $35, and asked him to reconvey the land to her, which he refused to do; and she offers in the bill to pay him $35 with interest thereon from the day it was paid to her, and offers to do equity as the court may determine.

The prayer of the bill was for a cancellation of said deed, declaring the same to be null and void, and for general relief. A demurrer to the bill was interposed, and overruled.

The answer denies that complainant sold only 20 acres, but alleges that she sold the 80 acres, and denies fraud. It admits that complainant was the real owner of the land, but sets up that a large amount of taxes would have to be paid, to clear the land.

The chancellor, on the evidence introduced, decreed a cancellation of the deed, upon condition that complainant pay to the register for the respondent, within 30 days from the enrollment of the decree, the sum of $35, which was paid by him to her as a consideration for said deed, together with interest from the 30th of May, 1906, the date of said deed, and that each party pay one-half of the costs to be taxed.

The undisputed evidence shows, that complainant was a negro woman about 22 years of age, and was the owner of the 80 acres of land; that she lived in the country, about nine miles from Birmingham, but not on the land in controversy; that the land in controversy was also about nine miles from Birmingham, but not near where appellee was living; that defendant, John F Leonard, was a white man, a bartender, and real estate dealer, in Birmingham, of large experience in land transactions; that complainant knew nothing of business affairs, and that this was the only...