Smalley v. Vogt

• Decision Date: 01 April 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 5251.)
• Citation: 166 S.W. 1
• Parties: SMALLEY v. VOGT.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 1

166 S.W. 1

SMALLEY v. VOGT.

(No. 5251.)

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 1, 1914.

On Motion for Reing April 29, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Calhoun County; John M. Green Judge.

Action by F. J. Smalley against Gus Vogt. From a judgment dismissing the cause, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Wilson & Hamilton, of Port Lavaca, for appellant. W. D. Love, of Uvalde, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

Appellant sued to recover of appellee the sum of $1,200, alleged to be due by reason of a deficit of 80 acres of land in a tract sold by appellee to him. He alleged that it was represented to him by appellee that the tract contained 624 acres of land, but that appellant refused to accept the tract as containing that number of acres unless appellee had the same surveyed, and appellee secured the services of the county surveyor, and, after the same had been surveyed, both appellee and the surveyor represented to appellant that the tract contained 624 acres of land, and he paid for the same at the agreed rate of $15 an acre; that he had no reason to suspect that there was a shortage in the land until he had it surveyed in 1913; that he relied upon the representations of appellee and his agent, the surveyor, and believed them to be fair and upright men; that he has very limited education, and did not know how to calculate the number of acres by the field notes; that by the fraud of appellee and his agent he was induced to make the trade, and "he was lulled into a sense of security as to the amount of the land and believed that it contained 624 acres, and he (the plaintiff herein) relied on defendant, Gus Vogt, and his agent, the surveyor." He fully and elaborately alleged his faith and confidence in the representations of appellee and the surveyor, and that there was no other surveyor in Calhoun county at that time. Exceptions were sustained to the petition, and the cause dismissed.

The fraud of appellee was sufficiently set forth in the petition, and the facts which go to excuse appellant in failing to discover the fraud were full and clear enough to carry the case to a jury. The facts show that appellant acted as most, if not all, men would have acted under the circumstances. The business of the world is built upon confidence in the honor and integrity of those with whom we deal. No man, after a tract of land is surveyed by the seller, has a resurvey of it, when there is nothing to arouse suspicion, and experience teaches us that few men calculate the amount of land by the field notes in their deeds, and the vast majority could not calculate the acreage if they so desired. The allegations present a case of fraud, and do not show laches upon the part of appellant in discovering the fraud. The allegations make a case for a jury, and it should be tried on its merits.

The rule as to laches is clearly set forth by Associate Justice Reese of the First Court of Civil Appeals in Isaacks v. Wright, 50 Tex. Civ. App. 312, 110 S. W. 970. The court said: "It is true that with the means at hand, if he had felt called upon to investigate, he could have discovered the mistake, but there was absolutely nothing to arouse in his mind the slightest suspicion with regard thereto. He had been put in possession by the vendor's agent, from whom he had bought, of the identical ground sold to him, after the delivery of the deed; had been advised that this was the identical land conveyed by his deed; had the lines and corners pointed out; and, under the eyes of the agent and with his knowledge, had erected his fence and planted his trees. Under these circumstances, was he guilty, under the law as laid down in the decisions cited, of such laches as to start the statute to running, in failing to get the plat and his deed and with proper assistance verifying the description in the deed to be sure that there was no mistake? A very cautious and...