Moreland v. Atchison

• Decision Date: 01 January 1857
• Citation: 19 Tex. 303
• Parties: GEORGE W. MORELAND v. ROBERT ATCHISON.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

19 Tex. 303

GEORGE W. MORELAND

v.ROBERT ATCHISON.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1857.

It is clearly settled beyond controversy that chancery will decree a return of the purchase money for insufficiency of title, even after the purchase has been carried completely into execution, by delivery of the deed and payment of the money, and whether the deed was with or without covenants, provided there had been a fraudulent representation as to the title.

The law presumes that every man who makes a contract acts with a knowledge of the law, and of the legal effects and consequences of the contract.

The question whether, in any case, mere ignorance or mistake of law will entitle a party to relief, has been much discussed by judges and commentators, and is still a disputed question.

The general rule, it has been truly said, is justified by considerations of public policy; and yet so harsh a rule, founded upon a presumption so arbitrary, ought to be modified in its application, by every exception which can be admitted without defeating its policy.

It has been the constant practice of courts of chancery to grant relief where the case did not depend upon a mere mistake of law, stripped of all other circumstances, but upon an admixture of other ingredients, going to establish misrepresentation, imposition, undue confidence, undue influence, or advantage taken of another's situation.

There was in this case misrepresentation and fraud, if corruptly deceiving one, as to matter of law, amounts to fraud in a legal sense; and we do not doubt that it may, where, as in this case, advantage is taken of the ignorance of the party.

When one who has had superior means of information professes a superior knowledge, even of the law, and thereby obtains an unconscientious advantage of another, who is confessedly ignorant, and who has not been in a situation to be informed, the injured party is as much entitled to relief, on the ground of fraud, as if the misrepresentation were of a matter of fact. This principle is applicable to the case of an immigrant to the state, who, having just arrived, meets with an old citizen who professes familiarity with the land titles of the country, and proposes to sell him land to which he assures the immigrant he has a perfectly good title.

Whether a tract of land claimed by pre-emption is within a district of country reserved from the operation of the pre-emption laws, is a matter of fact which a purchaser would not be presumed to know, under the rule which presumes a knowledge of the law.

Appeal from Grayson. Tried below before the Hon. William S. Todd.

Petition filed September 21, 1855, as follows: The petition of George W. Moreland, a resident of Grayson county, would represent and show that heretofore, to wit: on the 30th day of October, A. D. 1854, he purchased of one Robert Atchison, who is also a resident of Grayson county, and who petitioner prays may be made a defendant to this petition, three hundred and twenty acres of land in Grayson county, and described as follows: [Here followed a description of the land by metes and bounds, fixing the beginning corner by course and distance from the S. E. corner of Thomas F. Hay's preemption survey.] Petition charges that on the 9th day of December, A. D. 1853, one Daniel Boon filed his application as a pre-emptioner with the county surveyor of Grayson county to pre-empt the aforesaid land. Petitioner further charges, that on the ____ day of ____, A. D. 1854, and before your petitioner purchased the aforesaid land of the said Robert Atchison, the said Atchison purchased the same of the said Daniel Boon, for and in consideration of the sum of three hundred and twenty dollars. Petitioner further charges, that said sale, made by the said Boon to the said Atchison, was never reduced to writing, and that after your petitioner had purchased the same as aforesaid of the said Atchison, he, the said Atchison, proposed, as there was no writing between him and the said Boon, that the said Boon should make a deed of conveyance to your petitioner directly, which would save the making of a deed from the said Boon to the said Atchison, and from him, the said Atchison, to your petitioner, and would also save the expenses of recording more than one deed, which your petitioner agreed to for convenience. Petitioner further charges, that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, and for the purpose of saving expenses and for convenience sake, the said Boon did, on the 30th day of October, 1854, execute to your petitioner a deed of conveyance for the aforesaid 320 acres of land. Petitioner charges as aforesaid, that said deed was made directly from Boon to your petitioner, for the purpose aforesaid, and not for any consideration paid by petitioner to said Boon. Petitioner states that the entire trade was made between him and the said defendant, and that the entire consideration paid by petitioner for said land was paid to the said Atchison, with whom he traded, and that he never made any contract with said Boon for said land, nor did he ever pay the said Boon any of the consideration for the said land; and he further states that it was agreed that said Boon should be substituted as the maker of said deed to your petitioner, in the place of said Atchison; all of which the said Atchison proposed himself and agreed to; which said deed, made by the said Boon as aforesaid, is hereto attached and made a part of this petition, and marked exhibit “A.” Petitioner further states and charges, that at the time he made the aforesaid purchase of the said Atchison, he was a stranger in the country, and was an entire stranger to, and unacquainted with, the land system of Texas, he being just moved into the state of Texas, and that the said Atchison represented himself as an old settler in Texas, and entirely familiar with the lands and with the laws governing land titles within Texas. Petitioner further charges, that said Atchison corruptly and fraudulently represented to your petitioner that he, the said Atchison, had a good title to the aforesaid 320 acres of land, and that your petitioner could hold the same without any molestation or hindrance, and that he would guarantee the title to the same.

Petitioner states that, believing and confiding in the representations and statements made by the said Atchison as aforesaid, and that his, the said Atchison's, title to the said land was good, purchased the same as aforesaid from the said Atchison, for which he paid the said Atchison one stallion Jack at seven hundred dollars; also one order from Boon on the said Atchison, one hundred dollars; he also executed to the said Atchison his two certain promissory notes for one hundred bushels of corn each, rating corn one dollar per bushel; one of said notes is due in the fall of the year 1855; the other due in the fall of the year 1856; making in the whole your petitioner paid and was to pay for said land, one thousand dollars. Petitioner further charges that said Atchison did not have any title to said land, and that your petitioner acquired no title by his aforesaid purchase, and that at the time the said Boon made his application to pre-emption the same, it was not subject to be pre-empted or located, because the 320 acres of land was lying in what was known and called Peters' colony, and that by law, all persons were prevented from pre-empting or locating any lands in said colony, except by virtue of colony certificates. He therefore charges that the said Atchison had no title whatever to said land, when he sold the same to your petitioner. Petitioner therefore charges that he was wholly induced to purchase said land by the false and fraudulent representations made to him by the said Atchison, that the title to the same was good.

The premises considered, he brings this suit, and prays that said Atchison be made a defendant herein, and hereby tenders back the deed that the said Boon executed, to and all the rights he acquired by the same, to the said Atchison. And he also here offers to release unto the said Atchison all the interest that he may have acquired by his aforesaid purchase.

Petitioner also prays for judgment against the said Atchison for the sum of eight hundred dollars, which he has paid him, together with the interest thereon due. Also, the sum of five hundred dollars as damages, by reason of the fraud practiced on him by the said Atchison.

Petitioner further...