Phillips v. Hull

• Decision Date: 30 December 1882
• Citation: 101 Pa. 567
• Parties: Phillips <I>versus</I> Hull.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 567

101 Pa. 567

Phillips versus Hull.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 28, 1882.

December 30, 1882.

November 28th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford county: Of January Term 1882, No. 308.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jas. A. Stranahan and Wm. R. Bole (with whom was Geo. F. Davenport), for plaintiff in error.—The alleged agreement by Phillips to pay Mullen $100, even if true, was not a fraud upon Hull; the latter heard the bargain and adopted and ratified it, by actually giving Mullen the corn, in pursuance of part of the same arrangement. Phillips did not get the farm by artifice or trick, but because Hull wished him to do so, and although Phillips induced others, in Hull's presence, not to bid, this was in furtherance of their common purpose. Even if the sale were a fraud upon Hull, he subsequently ratified it also, by saying that he was "perfectly satisfied," with Phillip's explanation of the matter; and he accepted and retained benefits under the original contract, after discovering the alleged fraud, by unduly delaying to claim the land: Pearsoll v. Chapin, 8 Wr. 9; Negley v. Lindsay, 17 P. F. S. 217; Seylar v. Carson, 19 P. F. S. 81. The transaction between Phillips and Mullen in Hull's presence was not a fraud upon Hull, and there is nothing, therefore, left but a parol agreement by one to buy land for another, which comes within the statute of frauds. This case is governed by the doctrine laid down in Jackman v. Ringland, 4 W. & S. 149; Barnet v. Dougherty, 8 C. 371; Kellum v. Smith, 9 C. 158; and Bennett v. Dollar Savings Bank, 6 N. 382. If Hull is allowed to recover at all it can only be by conditional verdict; by paying Phillips the amount for which he bought the land, and holds it as security.

J. B. Brawley and John J. Henderson, for defendant in error.—The plaintiff in error obtained a title to the farm of the defendant in error, at a grossly inadequate price, by representing to the defendant that he would bid it in at the amount of debts due on it, and that he would bid it in for the defendant; by representing to Mullen, who proposed to bid at the sale, that he (Phillips) was going to bid the farm in for Hull and save him a home, and that he did not want him (Mullen) to bid against him on that account; and by paying to Mullen $100 as an inducement to him not to bid at the sale. These facts are established by the testimony of at least five witnesses. There can be no doubt that a title thus acquired is void: Slingluff v. Eckel, 12 H. 474; McKennan v. Pry, 6 Watts 137; Abbey v. Dewey, 1 Casey 413; Seylar v. Carson, 19 P. F. S. 81. Bennett v. Savings Bank, 6 Norris 382, and the other cases cited by plaintiff in error are cases of parol agreements and nothing more; in none of them were bidders dissuaded from bidding by the representation that the property was to be bought for the defendant; in none of them was money paid by the purchaser to buy off a bidder. These "devices" and "deceits" are what the law condemns. It was not necessary to tender to Phillips the amount of his bid before bringing suit: Gilbert v. Hoffman, 2 Watts 67; Smull v. Jones, 1 W. & S. 138. But the plaintiff in error says that he ought not to be held responsible for his fraudulent conduct because Hull knew that he had the arrangement with Mullen, and that he was to buy in the farm. If, however, Phillips falsely and fraudulently represented to Hull that he would sell the farm at sheriff's sale, on his judgment, for the purpose of putting the title in a more convenient shape to sell in pieces, and that he would bid it in and then they would sell it to pay the balance of the debts and that the remainder of the land should be his, and that he would do this for the purpose of saving him a home, and by such fraudulent representations obtained the consent of Hull to the buying in of the farm, and thereby was enabled to get it for one-fourth of its value, the consent of Hull, so obtained, would not give validity to the title.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, December 30th 1882.

This is an action of ejectment to recover land bought at sheriff's sale by the plaintiff in error, as the property of the defendant. The plaintiff owned and was interested in judgments against the defendant in error aggregating about $11,000. The latter seeks to recover on a parol agreement made with the plaintiff in error by which he was to sell the land at sheriff's sale, buy it, and hold it until a private sale thereof could be made, and after the amount due to him was paid, the defendant in error was to have the residue. The latter was to advance nothing, to pay nothing. Without his assent the plaintiff could have sold. The defendant made no agreement that he would afterwards purchase the land at any price. If this were the whole case it is very clear the defendant in error could not recover. As the purchase was made, and the money paid by the same person, a refusal to fulfill the agreement is no more than the violation of a parol agreement, and equity will not decree the purchaser to be a trustee: Kisler v. Kisler, 2 Watts 323; Sidle v. Walters, 5 Id. 391; Robertson v. Robertson, 9 Id. 32; Fox v. Heffner, 1 W. & Serg. 372; Jackman v. Ringland, 4 Id. 149; Barnet v. Dougherty, 8 Casey 371; Kellum v. Smith, 9 Id. 158; Bennett v. Dollar Savings Bank, 6 Norris 382.

It is claimed, however, by the defendant in error, that the plaintiff was guilty of a trick or artifice whereby the effect of the sheriff's sale was avoided. It may be conceded that a trick or artifice unknown to the defendant in error which operated to his...