McElya v. Hill

• Decision Date: 12 April 1900
• Citation: 59 S.W. 1025,105 Tenn. 319
• Parties: McELYA v. HILL et ux. HILL et ux. v. McELYA.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

59 S.W. 1025

105 Tenn. 319

McELYA v. HILL et ux.

HILL et ux. v. McELYA.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 12, 1900

Appeal from chancery court, Carroll county; A. G. Hawkins Chancellor.

Suit by Mollie C. McElya against John C. Hill and wife for the rescission of a sale of land, and bill by John C. Hill and wife against Mollie C. McElya and another for the collection of purchase money and the enforcement of a vendor's lien. From a decree in the consolidated cases in favor of Hill McElya appeals. Affirmed.

J. M Troutt and J. T. Peeler, for appellant.

Jo. R. Hawkins, for appellees.

McALISTER J.

This bill was filed for the rescission of a sale of land. On the 8th of July, 1896, John C. Hill and wife executed a deed to the complainant, Mrs. M. C. McElya, for a house and lot in Huntingdon, at the price of $1,500. Complainant paid $800 in cash, and for the balance of purchase money executed two notes, each for the sum of $350, payable in one and two years, respectively. The first note was credited by the sum of $130, the value of a horse and wagon which defendants accepted in part payment of the note. Shortly after the purchase, complainant went into possession of the property. On the 27th of October, 1897, after the maturity of the first note, and 15 months after the purchase, complainant filed this bill seeking a rescission upon the ground of fraud in the sale. She charged that defendants were occupying the property as a boarding house; that complainant had purchased the property in order to enter upon the same business, and that it was a condition of the contract of purchase that defendants should not carry on the same business in the town of Huntingdon; that they would assist complainant in securing boarders, and lend her their influence. The bill alleged that defendants, in violation of this stipulation of the contract, had immediately opened another boarding house. It was also alleged that defendants contracted to furnish the rooms on the second floor, which they had failed to do. Another allegation was that defendants had grossly misled and deceived complainant in respect of the value of the property. Complainant further charged that when the deed to the property was delivered to her she objected to it because it did not contain all the stipulations of the contract, but she was assured by the defendant that his word was as good as his bond, and that he would faithfully comply with his agreement. Complainant charged that defendants had breached the contract, and had practiced a great fraud upon her. Defendants answered the bill, denying all the allegations of fraud, and averring a full compliance with the contract, denying any agreement to abandon the boarding house business, and averring that the property was fully worth the price agreed to be paid. Defendants, on the same day, filed an original bill against complainant and the surety on the notes for the collection of balance of the purchase money and the enforcement of vendor's lien. The two causes were consolidated, and heard together. A jury was demanded by complainant's solicitor, who formulated 20 issues to be submitted for their determination. The record recites: "The court was pleased to disallow all of the issues submitted on behalf of Mrs. McElya, and of his own motion formed three issues to be submitted to the jury on the trial of this cause. Complainant's solicitors excepted to the action of the court in disallowing nineteen of the issues submitted by him, and further he excepted to the last two issues formulated by the court. There was no exception to the first issue formulated by the court, which was, viz.: Was the sale and conveyance of the land set out in the pleadings in these causes by John C. Hill and wife to M. C. McElya fraudulent?" This was the only issue submitted to the jury, and under the charge of the court a verdict was rendered that the sale was not fraudulent. On this verdict the court pronounced a decree in favor of the defendants, and rendered judgment for balance of the purchase money. Mrs. McElya appealed, and has assigned errors.

The first assignment is that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the 19 issues of fact presented by complainant's solicitor. It has been held that an issue should not be directed on a question the decision of which is immaterial or unessential to the determination of the suit. Where the issues are very numerous, or very minute, or so grouped that confusion and mistake by a jury may be expected, the court should decide them itself, and not send them to a jury. 11 Enc. Pl. & Prac. p. 632. Thus it is held in Massachusetts that, even if a party has a statutory right to trial by jury in an equity case, it is only in regard to those controverted facts which are essential to the trial of the whole case; and whether the facts are so essential or material is to be determined by the court. Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 7 Pick. 344. So, in Delaware, it was held that the act which directs issues of fact in a chancery case to be tried by a jury must be understood as referring only to issues of fact which involve the merits of the case and are material to the decision of the cause, and the chancellor is not bound to order issues to be tried by a jury unless they are thus material. Waters v. Comly, 3 Har. (Del.) 127; Connor v. Frierson, 98 Tenn. 183, 38 S.W. 1031. We have carefully examined the 19 issues tendered by complainant's solicitor, and find that many of them were wholly immaterial, and that none of them went to the whole case. The gravamen of complainant's suit for rescission was fraud, which question was to be determined upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances in the case. Complainant's counsel sought to make every fact tending to show fraud the basis of a separate issue, thus indefinitely multiplying the issues, to the dismay and confusion of the jury, when the whole evidence could be considered under the issue, was there or not fraud in the sale?

The second assignment is that the chancellor erred in submitting to the jury on his own motion an insufficient issue, which raised a mixed question of law

and fact. Section 6285, Shannon's Code, provides, viz.: "The issues shall be made up by the parties under the direction of the court, and set forth briefly and clearly the true questions of fact to be tried." It is true that when the chancellor declined to submit the multitude of issues tendered by complainant's solicitor he then proceeded to formulate three issues which he thought went to the whole case. Complainant's solicitor objected to the last two, but did not object to the first issue. Thereupon the chancellor withdrew the last two, and submitted only the first issue, which was, viz.: "Was the sale and conveyance of lands set out in the pleadings in this cause by John C. Hill and wife to Mrs. M. C. McElya fraudulent?" It is objected now for the first time in this court that this issue raises a compound question of law and fact, which was improper for the consideration of the jury. Such mixed questions of law and fact frequently arise, and are constantly passed on by juries. Questions of negligence and probable cause in actions for malicious prosecution are mixed questions of law and fact, yet they are passed on by juries almost daily in our circuit courts. In Gas Co. v. Williamson, 9 Heisk. 340, Chief...