Stevens v. Alabama State Land Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1899
• Citation: 121 Ala. 450,25 So. 995
• Parties: STEVENS ET AL. v. ALABAMA STATE LAND CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

25 So. 995

121 Ala. 450

STEVENS ET AL. v. ALABAMA STATE LAND CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 17, 1899

Appeal from chancery court, Blount county; Thomas Cobbs, Chancellor.

Bill by the Alabama State Land Company against John L. Stevens and another. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The bill in this case was filed by the Alabama State Land Company against Margaret A. Stevens and John L. Stevens to enforce a vendor's lien upon certain lands sold by the plaintiff to Margaret A. Stevens, the wife of John L. Stevens. John L Stevens indorsed on the notes which were given for the purchase money of said lands his consent that his wife might enter into said contract. It was averred in the bill that John L. Stevens was cutting the timbers from the lands, which were principally valuable for timber, and rendering the same of less value than the purchase-money notes of his wife Margaret A. Stevens; and he was made a party to the bill, and enjoined from cutting the timber. Although John L. Stevens was not in any way interested in the purchase of said lands he joined with his wife in the cross bill. The other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the final submission of the cause upon the pleadings and proof the chancellor decreed that the complainant in the original bill was entitled to relief, and ordered a reference to the register to ascertain the amount due, and, further, that the complainant in the cross bill was not entitled to relief, and the cross bill was ordered dismissed. From this decree the respondents appeal, and assign the rendition thereof as error.

Inzer & Ward, for appellants.

J. A. W. Smith, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Bill by appellee against appellants to enforce vendor's lien and mortgage on lands for purchase money. Defense, false representations inducing the purchase; cross bill for rescission. The bill was filed 18 months after the purchase and prior to maturity of some of the notes; and some four months after it was filed the respondents filed their answer admitting the facts, and that complainant was entitled to a decree for the matured note, but insisted that it had no right to enforce a lien for the notes not due when the bill was filed. Two months afterwards they filed a further answer, making it a cross bill for rescission, setting up said defense of false representations. The answer states that respondent John L. Stevens negotiated the purchase for his co-respondent-his wife-with one Crandall, acting as agent for vendor. The cross bill states the alleged false representations, and respondents' reliance on same, etc., in the following language: "That the purchase of said lands was made by the said John L. Stevens late one evening when it was raining, and the said John L. Stevens was not on or near the lands in section 15; and the said E. A. Crandall represented to him that all of the lands in section 15 purchased by respondent, amounting to about 600 acres, were well timbered, with timber suitable for saw logs, such as was the best part of the lands purchased in section No. 21. And respondent, relying on said statement, purchased said lands, when in truth and in fact there is not more than 10 acres of saw timber, or timber suitable to make lumber, on said 600 acres of land. Respondents further allege that relying on the statement of the said E. A. Crandall as to the statements made to him as to the value of the lands in section 15, and believing said statements to be true, they never made any investigation as to said 600 acres of land in said section 15 until since the filing of the first answer in this cause; and it only came to their knowledge within the last few days, of the true condition of said 600 acres of land. Respondents further aver that said 600 acres of land in section 15 is almost entirely worthless. Respondents further allege that they were misled and induced to purchase said lands by the false and fraudulent misrepresentations of the said E. A. Crandall, agent of complainant, in his...