Perkins v. M'Gavock
| Decision Date | 01 January 1813 |
| Citation | 3 Tenn. 415 |
| Parties | PERKINS v. M'GAVOCK. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
It is a sound principle of equity, that each party to a contract is bound to disclose to the other, all he may know respecting the subject-matter materially affecting a correct view of it, unless common observation would have furnished the information, and the failure to disclose would be such a concealment as would entitle the party aggrieved to relief. [Acc. White v. Flora, 2 Tenn., 426, and cases there cited.]
But if it appear that the complainant had as good an opportunity of ascertaining the facts as the defendant, and acted upon his own judgment, his bill must be dismissed.
[Cited in: M. & Y., 241.]
The bill charged that the complainant and defendant held eight hundred acres of land as tenants in common on which there was a valuable spring, and that the defendant represented that should an equal division of quantity take place the spring would fall in the western part. That the partition did take place, and that the complainant gave the defendant for a choice of parts a horse worth one hundred dollars and his note for two hundred and fifty dollars more, believing that the spring, from the representation of the defendant, would be in the western division, which was chosen by the complainant.
The bill further charged that the defendant, or at least David M'Gavock who acted as the agent in all this business, knew the spring would fall in the eastern division, and that by a concealment of this fact on the part of the defendant or those who acted for him, together with the positive representation that it would be in the western part, he was induced to make choice of the western part, and give for that choice the three hundred and fifty dollars above mentioned. It is further alleged that the defendant had brought a suit on the note and recovered a judgment. The bill prays that the proceedings at law may be enjoined and that the value of the horse may be refunded.
The answer denies the representation charged respecting the spring, or that he knew at the time of the contract that the spring would be in the eastern division. It admits that the land was equally divided as to quantity and that the complainant gave the sum mentioned in the bill for choice.
The testimony is mentioned so fully in the opinion of the Court that it is deemed unnecessary to repeat it here.
Overton, J. delivered the following resolution of the Court.
By the proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, Conn.
...the Tennessee Supreme Court took the view that it was always the duty to disclose facts not apparent to the other party. In Perkins v. McGavock, 3 Tenn. 415, 417, it was held:. . . to be a sound principle of equity that each party to a contract is bound to disclose to the other all he may k......
-
Smith v. PFIZER INC.
...No. M2008-01738-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 1034797, at *4, 2009 Tenn.App. LEXIS 138, at *10 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 16, 2009) (citing Perkins v. M'Gavock, 3 Tenn. 415, 417 (1813)). Furthermore, it is well settled that a drug manufacturer has "an obligation to advise the prescribing physician of any pote......
-
Bridgestone Am.'s, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
...No. M2008–01738–COA–R3–CV, 2009 WL 1034797, at *4, 2009 Tenn.App. LEXIS 138, at *10 (Tenn.Ct.App. Apr. 16, 2009) (citing Perkins v. M ' Gavock, 3 Tenn. 415, 417 (1813) ). The Tennessee Court of Appeals has since expanded upon Simmons's formulation. In Patton v. McHone , 822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn......
-
Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.
...other all he may know respecting the subject matter materially affecting a correct view of it.’ ” 6 Id. at 296 (quoting Perkins v. M'Gavock, 3 Tenn. 415, 417 (1813)); see also, e.g., Odom v. Oliver, 310 S.W.3d 344, 349-50 (Tenn.Ct.App.2009) (“[C]ontracting parties have a duty to disclose ma......