Sellers, Bullard & Co. v. Grace
Citation | 150 Ala. 181,43 So. 716 |
Parties | SELLERS, BULLARD & CO. v. GRACE ET AL. |
Decision Date | 20 April 1907 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Geneva County; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.
Bill by W. S. Grace and another against Sellers, Bullard & Co. From a decree for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
W. O Mulkey and C. D. Carmichael, for appellants.
Espy & Farmer, for appellees.
The bill in this case was to reform a lease or deed, set out as Exhibit A,--to correct a mistake therein,--alleged to have been committed on the appellees, by the fraud of the defendants, acting through one of their number, W. B Sellers, or to cancel and declare void the said deed. The contract of lease or sale, recites that,
The lease or deed was acknowledged, in due form, by said Grace and wife, before J. W. Pridgen, notary public and ex officio justice of the peace, both acknowledging that they were informed of the contents of the conveyance, and executed the same voluntarily on the day the same bears date. The wife was afterwards examined separate and apart from her husband, and stated that she signed the same of her own free will and accord, without fear, constraint, threats or persuasion of her husband.
The bill alleges in its fourth paragraph, that the grantors did agree and sell to the defendants, the merchantable log timber, that is, all live pine timber that measures "12 inches at 20 feet," and "that is what should be mentioned in said contract, and that alone is what should have been covered by said deed or lease." It further alleges, that complainants can neither read nor write, and that they signed said deed without the same being read over to them, on the assurance of defendants, that it contained only a lease upon the merchantable pine timber on said land and further, that defendants well knew this, when they had complainants to sign the same; that it was obtained through fraud and deceit on the part of the defendants, who took advantage of complainants.
The answer fully denies the allegations of the want of knowledge of complainants of the contents of said lease or deed, and denies that any fraud was perpetrated on them, averring that the deed expresses the true contract of the parties, and that there was no fraud or mistake practiced or made upon complainants in its execution. That at the time of the execution of said deed, there was present J. W. Pridgen, a notary public...
To continue reading
Request your trial