Pennybacker v. Laidley.
| Decision Date | 25 March 1890 |
| Citation | 33 W.Va. 624 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Pennybacker v. Laidley. |
One of the fundamental principles in regard to fraudulent misrepresentation is, that the false statement must be believed by the party to whom addressed, otherwise however false, or however fraudulent the intent, the false statement does not constitute any ground for rescission of a contract.
Where parties deal at arm's length, and there is no confidential or fiduciary relation between them, mere silence on the part of the purchaser of realty, or failure to disclose knowledge on his part of a peculiar value affecting the property, or the title thereto, would not be sufficient to set aside a sale fairly made, and which is otherwise unimpeachable.
The well established doctrine is that, where there is no actual fraud, and no confidential or fiduciary relations between the parties, mere inadequacy of consideratioa is not sufficient to rescind a sale, unless it be so great as to shock the moral sense of mankind.
The inadequacy above referred to, must be established as of the date of the contract, and if there were not, at that date, such inadequacy as has been described, none can be considered which may arise from subsequent enhancement, depreciation, or change of circumstances.
In reference to contracts of hazard, the factor of risk and hazard is such a disturbing element in the estimation of value, that courts of equity, when inadequacy alone is in question, will refuse to interfere.
There is no doubt that courts of equity vail correct mistakes of the scrivener in drawing a deed, where he has not drawn it in accordance with the clearly established directions and instructions of the parties; but before a court of chancery will consent to correct a mistake in the terms of a dead, participated in by only one of the parties thereto, where no fraud or deception is practiced, and where a party of ordinary intelligence, who can read, has deliberately executed said deed, the proof of mistake, where admitted at all, must be strong, clear, preponderating and convincing to the mind of the court.
J. B. Laidley, JEJ. S. Dooliltle, Brown Sc Jackson, 0. Johnson, J. E. Kenna, J. A. Warth, J. W. Kennedy and W. E. Chilton for appellant.
J. II. Ferguson, Simms $ Enslow, J. M. Layne and E. Gibson for appellee.
This was a suit instituted by bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Cabell county, at the February rules, 1888, against the defendant John B. Laidley, and certain purchasers from him, who are charged with notice, for the purpose of setting aside, on the ground of fraud and mis- take, a certain deed made by the plaintiff, on the 26th day of January, 1882, conveying two hundred and forty acres of land to the said John B. Laidley. The plaintiff alleges in her bill that in 1865, Rebecca J. Everett conveyed to her in fee a tract of 240 acres in Cabell county. The plaintiff alleges that at the time of the execution of the said deed to her she was a married woman, living with her husband John M. Pennybacker, and that the said deed vested a life estate in the said Pennybacker, by virtue of his marital right. That the said John M. Pennybacker took possession of the said land, enjoying the rents and profits thereof until the 25th day of February, 1870, when he bargained and sold the same (reserving one acre), to C, P. Huntington for $11,000.00, as this complainant is informed, conveying the same by a deed duly executed by him, the husband of this complainant, but which was never executed by this complainant, in the manner required by law to divest her of her title to said land, and which and in fact, conveyed only the life estate of her husband, John M. Pennybacker, but under which the said Huntington took possession of the said land. That her husband, John M. Pennybacker died in July, 1881. That in January, 1882, John B. Laidley, a practicing attorney, whom plaintiff had known for many years, came to her home in Huntington, and represented that she had a dower interest in said 240 acres of land. That she contended that she could have no interest in the land, having always been under the impression that all her interest had been conveyed to Huntington, and so told said Laidley, who then explained to her, that under the new Constitution of West Virginia, she had a dower interest in said land and proposed to bring suit to recover said dower, for one half thereof, but, should he lose said suit she must pay him for his services; which proposition she declined. That he called again and offered her $500.00 for the said dower, which offer she did not then accept, and that Laidley told her he would call again, and in the meantime she could consider the proposition, and consult her friends about the matter, but exacted from her a promise, "on the honor of a lady," that she would not consult a lawyer. That she consulted some of her friends, and being advised that she could have no such interest, and being advised by them to do so, agreed to take the $500.00 for her said alleged dower; and accordingly on the 26th day of Jannary, 1882, executed to said Laidley a deed which he had prepared and had presented to he]-, of the contents of which she was ignorant at that time, but supposed it to be, and understood it to be, a eonveyance of the dower interest which said Laidley was pretending to purchase, but which was in fact an absolute conveyance of the said 240 acres of land. That at that time she was the absolute owner of said land, never having in any way parted with her title thereto; a fact of which she was then ignorant, and which the said Laidley cunningly and adroitly concealed from her. That the said tract of land, situated in the city of Huntington, was at the time it was conveyed to Laidley, worth at the very lowest estimate, $100,000.00; that she was then living within a few hundred yards of it, and well knew its value, and had she not been grossly misled and deceived by the said Laidley she would not have executed said deed. That said deed was obtained by said Laidley through the grossest fraud and misrepresentation; that the said consideration was wholly and entirely inadequate, and that said deed is void. The bill alleges a sale of part of said land to the defendant Campbell by Laidley, and that Campbell conveyed a part of his interest to the defendant Erwin; and charges they and each of them had notice of the fraud. The bill prays for cancellation of said deeds. The plaintiff filed an amended bill, in which she sets up her poverty and business inexperience. She reiterates the story of Laidley's representations to her, that she had a dower interest in the land, and that she sold only her dower interest to him. In this bill she says, that she was led to think she had a dower interest in the land. She further says she did not know the legal effect of the deed to Laidley, at the time she executed it. That she was not informed by Laidley, that there was any defect in the deed to Huntington. Says at the time she executed the deed she had no knowledge that the deed conveyed anything but a dower interest in the land; that Laidley at that time knew she was under that impression. That the representations made to her by the said Laidley, which induced her to execute the said pretended deed were false and fraudulent, and made with the intent to deceive and defraud her, and did in fact deceive, mislead and injure her. That if she had at that time had any knowledge of the fact that she had any claim to the whole tract of land, she would not have sold it for the small sum received; that she did not at that time suspect there was any defect in the deed to Huntington, and never learned it until long after the deed to Laidley was executed, and Laidley had tried his suit in ejectment against the Central Land Company. That soon after she did discover the tacts, and that it was supposed that the deed to Huntington was void, and that Laidley claimed the entire tract by virtue of her deed to him, and called on an attorney and employed him to bring this suit, and that as soon as she made necessary arrangements for fees and costs she instituted this suit. That her delay in bringing the suit arose from her ignorance of the facts in the case, and from her general lack of business experience. That she was too poor to pay an attorney a fee certain, but was compelled to hire the attorney on a contingency. She now prays that the said pretended deed of January 26th, 1882, to John B. Laidley be held to have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation for a grossly inadequate consideration, and the same declared to be null and void, and the same set aside, and she in as far as she had title to the said land on the day she executed the same, be reinvested with the same, in the same manner as if she had never executed the said deed of January 26th, 1882.
She also prays that all such other further general relief may be granted her as to equity may seem fit, and the case require, and she will ever pray.
The defendant, J. B. Laidley, answered the bills, and denied every allegation therein, and avers that he told her the whole truth about the defect in the deed to Huntington, and wanted to bring a suit for her, to recover the land itself, which she would not permit, assigning as reason therefor, that if she brought said suit her son Mason, who was in the employ of the "Railroad Company, would be discharged, and that it would take all she had to prosecute the suit, and then proposed to sell all her interest, and he offered $500, which, after consulting with friends, she accepted and made the deed, upon his executing a contract to her that in the event her son was discharged by the company, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial