Reed v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 17 June 1914
• Docket Number: No. 1664.,1664.
• Citation: 19 N.M. 177,141 P. 611
• Parties: REEDv.ROGERS ET AL.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

19 N.M. 177

141 P. 611

REED

v.ROGERS ET AL.

No. 1664.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 17, 1914.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the complaint, in an action for rescission of an executed contract for the sale of land, alleges that the title to a certain portion of the land transferred to the plaintiff has failed and this failure of title is admitted by the answer, which answer also sets up and alleges that the plaintiff took possession with full knowledge of the state of the title, that he has held the land in question three years before bringing suit, that he has offered to sell some of it, exercised complete dominion over the same, made improvements thereon, and that he is estopped to claim rescission by reason of laches--in such a state of the pleadings it is not error on the part of the trial judge to deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as the allegations in the pleadings raise issues to be passed upon by the court.

In a case for rescission of an executed contract of sale, in which the defendant gave the plaintiff a warranty deed, the trial court, failing to find either fraud, mutual mistake, or other equitable grounds for rescission, properly holds that the plaintiff relied upon his covenants of title in the conveyance and properly refuses to grant rescission.

Where, in a suit for rescission of an executed contract for sale of land, in which the defendant grantor had given the plaintiff grantee a warranty deed under which plaintiff went into possession and held same for three years, with knowledge of the state of the title, made improvements, attempted to sell portions of the land, and exercised complete dominion over the same, and where the trial court finds as a fact that if there were misrepresentations as to the character or kind of land plaintiff could have discovered them within one year and is guilty of laches, in such a case the plaintiff is not entitled to rescission, but can only recover upon the covenants in his deed.

Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; McClure, Judge.

Action by James W. Reed against William E. Rogers and others. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

That the answer admitted the truth of an allegation of the complaint in an action to rescind an executed contract for the sale of land, that the vendors had failed to make title as to a portion of the land, held not to entitle the purchaser to a judgment on the pleadings where the answer also alleged facts showing that he was estopped to claim rescission.

In August, 1908, the appellant agreed to exchange his lands in Stonewall county, Tex., consisting of about 666 acres and described as surveys 320 and 329 of said county and state, for certain lands of the appellees in Eddy county, N. M., and pursuant to said agreement he conveyed his Texas lands to the appellees at that time for the consideration of $13,000, subject to incumbrances described in the warranty deed. In consideration of said deed, the appellees agreed to convey and did convey their lands in Eddy county, N. M. to appellant for the consideration of $19,000. The appellees retained a mortgage on the New Mexico lands for $6,000, payable in three equal annual installments of $2,000 each, bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent. Each party went into possession of the respective lands thus acquired, and so held possession until the summer of 1911, at which time the appellant learned that the title to 160 acres of the land which he had acquired from the appellees had entirely failed and that the land could not be patented under the appellees' script filing. After giving notice to the appellees, the appellant brought this suit in October, 1911.

The complaint sets up false and fraudulent representations of the appellees as to the value and fertility of the land and damages therefor, and also the right to rescind on the ground of failure of the title to 160 acres. The answer admits the failure of title to the 160 acres, admits that the script which had been filed thereon was invalid, and sets up as a defense that the appellant did not come into court with clean hands, because one William G. Reed, a son of the appellant, had made some settlement upon the land which appellees had conveyed by warranty deed to the appellant. The appellees further pleaded estoppel on account of laches as to the misrepresentations as to quality and price of the lands, and that appellant had incumbered said lands with mortgages and tax liens and was not in a position to place the appellees in statu quo. To this defense the appellant replied that a second mortgage was placed on the land for the purpose of drilling an artesian well and was a necessary improvement; that the appellant had been unable to produce crops on said lands because they were so badly “alkalied” that it killed any crop he sowed; that he tried to make it productive, but had failed; that appellant had only learned of the actual state of the title during the summer of 1911; and that he immediately demanded rescission, and when the same was refused brought this action.

Before the trial began plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which was not passed upon by the court at the time, but was denied in the judgment of the trial court given later.

Upon the trial of the case the court held as to false representations as to title, quality, value, and fertility of the land that plaintiff had slept upon his rights in these particulars, as well as to his damages. The court found that the title to the 160 acres had failed, but there were no fraudulent representations regarding the title. Thereupon the court dismissed the complaint, and the appellant has appealed upon the record proper.

Clifton Mathews and Gibbany & Black, all of Roswell, for appellant.

Reid & Hervey, of Roswell, for appellees.

RAYNOLDS, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The appellant assigns error as follows:

1. The district court erred in not sustaining plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, because plaintiff's right to the rescission and cancellation prayed for in his complaint was fixed and determined by the charge in said...