Meeks v. Garner

• Decision Date: 19 November 1890
• Citation: 8 So. 378,93 Ala. 17
• Parties: MEEKS ET AL. v. GARNER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 378

93 Ala. 17

MEEKS ET AL. v. GARNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 19, 1890

Appeal from chancery court, Etowah county; S. K. MCSPADDEN Chancellor.

Bill in equity to enforce vendor's lien. Upon a final hearing on the pleadings and proof the chancellor granted the relief prayed for by the complainants in their original bill, and the respondents now appeal, and assign this decree as error.

Amos E. Goodhue, for appellants.

Dortch & Martin, for appellees.

COLEMAN J.

The bill was filed by appellees to enforce a vendor's lien. The respondents answered, and by way of crossbill prayed for a rescission of the sale, upon the grounds that complainants' title was defective at the time of the sale, and of fraudulent representations as to the title. The fraudulent representations relied upon are "that his title to said property was perfect and good; that he, the said Garner, owned the property in fee-simple; that he had a good right to sell the same, and could convey a good title to respondents; and that he had always owned the land, and that he had a patent from the government for the same; that the title had always been in him, and that he had always refused to sell it." It is not denied that after the bill was filed, and before final hearing, all defects had been removed from complainant's title. The defect in complainant's title consisted in a deed of conveyance by complainant Garner to his son-in-law, B. C. Garrison, dated July 26, 1865, of the same lands. This deed to Garrison had never been acknowledged or proven or filed for record until the 21st February, 1888, and after this bill was filed; and no claim or rights under this deed of conveyance were ever at any time asserted by Garrison to the property thereby conveyed until after the sale by complainant Garner to respondents. "Where one, by the fraudulent representation of another in relation to material facts concerning the title to land the falsehood of which he had not the means of ascertaining, and could not have ascertained by reasonable diligence, is induced to invest his money in the purchase of the land, he can have relief in chancery before an eviction, and without abandoning possession." Young v. Harris, 2 Ala. 111. This authority has been followed in many others, and it is now the settled law of this state that for a false representation of a "material," "substantial" fact in regard to his title to land made by the vendor, and by which the purchaser was misled, and upon which he acted, and had a right to rely, he can have relief in a court of chancery, without abandoning possession, and it is immaterial that the vendor made the misrepresentation believing it to be true. Cullum v. Bank, 4 Ala. 35; Lanier v. Hill, 25 Ala. 558; Bryant v. Boothe, 30 Ala. 314; Bailey v. Jordan, 32 Ala. 50; Garner v. Leverett, Id. 410; Thompson v. Sheppard, 85 Ala. 618, 5 South. Rep. 334; Atwood v. Wright, 29 Ala. 352. If there is no fraud, and the vendor is not insolvent, the purchaser cannot retain possession of the land and refuse to pay the purchase money. In such case he must rely upon his covenants of warranty. 85 Ala. 618, 5 South. Rep. 334 supra; Woodall v. Kelly, 85 Ala. 374, 5 South. Rep. 164, and authorities cited; Sivoly v. Scott, 56 Ala. 555. "A perfect title is one that is good and valid beyond reasonable doubt, and should include both legal and equitable titles,-such a title as should be free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts." Turner v. McDonald, 76 Cal. 180, 18 P. 262. "Free from litigation" evidently means such litigation as may be based upon questions and claims of grave doubt, and about which competent persons might differ. Upon a bill filed by a vendee for the rescission of an executed or executory agreement for the sale of land, because of a defect in the title, no fraud having been practiced by the vendor, it will be a sufficient answer if the vendor can show that he had a valid and legal title at the time it was agreed the title should be made, or at the hearing of the cause, although his title may have been defective at the date of the agreement; but if the agreement was effected...