Romanoff Land & Mining Co. v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 28 February 1903
• Parties: ROMANOFF LAND & MINING CO. v. CAMERON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

33 So. 864

137 Ala. 214

ROMANOFF LAND & MINING CO. v. CAMERON.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 28, 1903

Appeal from Chancery Court, Tallapoosa County; Richard B. Kelly Chancellor.

Bill by H. J. Cameron against the Romanoff Land & Mining Company to foreclose a mortgage. Decree for complainant, and respondent appeals. Affirmed.

It was averred in the bill that the complainant sold to the defendant a specifically described tract of land, for which the defendant made a cash payment of a part of the purchase money, and for the balance executed four several notes, of $15,000 each, and, to secure the payment of said notes executed a mortgage upon said lands; that the defendant had made default in the payment of the notes; and the prayer of the bill was that said mortgage be foreclosed. There was also a prayer for general relief. The respondent filed an answer which was asked to be taken as a cross-bill, and averred therein that the lands described in the bill, and which were sold by the complainant to the defendant, were represented to the defendant to be very rich in gold ore, and they were purchased by the defendant for the purpose of mining and milling gold therefrom; that the representations made by the complainant to the defendant induced it to purchase said lands, and that the defendant relied upon such representations, but that said representations were false, in that said lands did not contain gold ore in any appreciable quantity, and were valueless to the defendant; that the defendant had expended large sums of money in trying to develop gold mines, but had found that said lands did not contain gold ore in sufficient quantities to authorize the defendant to mine it. It was further averred in said answer that the representations as to the lands containing gold were knowingly false on the part of the complainant, and were made for the purpose of deceiving the defendant and inducing it to make said purchase. The prayer of the cross-bill was that the notes and mortgage be declared void and delivered up and canceled.

The chancellor rendered a decree which was as follows: "Upon consideration, it is ordered that the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in his said bill, and that the respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for in its said cross-bill, and that said cross-bill is hereby dismissed. It is therefore ordered and decreed that complainant has a lien upon the land mentioned in the bill with the appurtenances thereon, for the purchase money now due, including principal and interest, which is now foreclosed; and, as the amount due complainant is easily computed, the court now makes the calculation without referring it to the register, and finds the amount due the complainant to be the sum of fifty-two thousand three hundred dollars." There then follow directions to the register as to how to proceed to sell the said lands.

Sorrell & Sorrell, for appellant.

W. M. Lackey, for appellee.

TYSON J.

It may be conceded that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by the bill was...