Nelson v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 09 April 1894
• Citation: 71 Miss. 819,15 So. 798
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: A. B. NELSON v. A. J. LAWSON ET AL

15 So. 798

71 Miss. 819

A. B. NELSON v. A. J. LAWSON ET AL

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 9, 1894

March 1894

FROM the circuit of Tunica county, HON. R. W. WILLIAMSON, Judge.

Appellant A. B. Nelson, was the owner of certain land, and made a verbal sale to Nelson & Perry of oak timber growing thereon. The agreed price was one hundred dollars, but there is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the sale included all the oak timber on the land. After cutting and removing about forty thousand feet of the timber, and paying the sum of one hundred dollars, Nelson & Perry verbally sold to A. J. Lawson the rest of the growing timber, and received payment therefor. Lawson proceeded, over the protest of Nelson, to cut the timber still standing on the land, and converted it into staves and cross-ties.

This action of replevin was thereupon brought by Nelson to recover the ties and staves from Lawson and one Lesser, in whose possession the staves and ties were found. The questions presented sufficiently appear in the opinion. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

W. A Percy, for appellant.

Unless there is some element of intentional wrong or fraud, the legal title of the plaintiff cannot be divested by equitable estoppel. Kelly v. Wagner, 61 Miss. 299. Besides, the defense of an equitable estoppel is not available in this action.

As there was no deed to the growing timber, the sale was void. Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700; Kingsley v. Holbrook, 86 Am. Dec., 173.

Lowe & Cochran, for appellees.

We admit that a verbal sale of standing timber is void, but the rule has no application here, because the contract was fully executed before suit was brought. Appellant had received full payment for his timber, and Lawson, the vendee of Nelson & Perry, had converted the same into cross-ties and staves and hauled them off the land. See Bish. on Con., §§ 147, 502; Wait's Ac. & Deg., 48; Swanzey v. Moore, 74 Am. Dec., 134; McCue v. Smith, 86 Ib., 100.

The doctrine of estoppel applies in this case. See 6 Wait's Ac. & Def., 704; 10 Am. Dec., 426; 91 Ib., 214; Lee v. Gardiner, 26 Miss. 521; Kempe v. Pintard, 32 Ib., 324; Wilie v. Brooks, 45 Ib., 542.

OPINION

CAMPBELL, C. J.

The doctrine that the invalidity of a contract under the statute of frauds cannot avail after the execution of the contract has no place in this case. Even according to the version of the contract between Nelson and Nelson & Perry, given by...