Storthz v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 28 January 1905
• Citation: 84 S.W. 1036,74 Ark. 68
• Parties: STORTHZ v. ARNOLD. ARNOLD v. STORTHZ
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

84 S.W. 1036

74 Ark. 68

STORTHZ v. ARNOLD.

ARNOLD v. STORTHZ

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 28, 1905

Appeals from Saline Chancery Court, LELAND LEATHERMAN Chancellor.

Reversal in one case; affirmance in the other.

Mary and Bettie Arnold, aged, respectively, 18 and 16 years brought separate suits against L. Storthz, alleging substantially the same state of case. They averred that they were part owners of a tract of land; that they were inexperienced and ignorant; that defendant, knowing that the land contained valuable mineral deposits known as "bauxite," fraudulently concealed such fact from plaintiffs, and procured their interests by paying therefor only $ 150 each, fraudulently representing to them that the land was of little value, whereas it was worth ten times the sum paid. They prayed for a rescission of the contract. Mary Arnold tendered the purchase money. Defendant's answer denied all allegations of fraud.

In the case of Mary Arnold, the court at the hearing dismissed the complaint; in the other case, the deed of Bettie Arnold to Storthz was cancelled. Both cases were appealed. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Judgment affirmed.

Eben W. Kimball, for L. Storthz.

Judgments can not be collaterally attacked. 79 S.W. 1062. There was no proof of tender of the purchase money, and the suit can not be sustained. 1 Whar. Contr. § 285. There were no fiduciary relations between the parties, and appellant was guilty of no fraud. Whar. Contr. §§ 25, 252; 4 Mass. 502; 44 Pa.St. 9; 16 Mich. 40; 23 Ind. 567; 14 Ia. 400; 24 Ia. 394. Inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside a sale of lands or chattels. Fry, Spec. Perf. § 279.

Murphy, Mehaffy & Lewis, for Arnolds.

Upon return of purchase money, the land should have been reconveyed. 2 Wheat. 178; 2 Paige, 390; 4 Am. Dec. 677; 51 Am. Dec. 717; 44 Am. Dec. 448; Warvelle, Vendors, 995; Kerr, Fraud and Mistake, 97. No tender of deed or money as a preliminary step was necessary to maintain the suit. 44 Ark. 192; 38 Ark. 133; 11 Mont. 138; 91 Mich. 429; 75 Ia. 710.

HILL, C. J. WOOD, J., dissenting.

OPINION

HILL, C. J.

Mary and Bettie Arnold, ignorant negro girls, aged, respectively, 18 and 16 years, owned, with their infant brother, a tract of 160 acres of land in Saline County. It had come to them through their deceased father who had lived upon it at one time. A small part of it had once been in cultivation. The improvements were of little value, and the taxes unpaid, and the time for redeeming from a tax sale nearing expiration. Such was the condition when one Jones, a man of their race and an attorney, called to see them at the home of their half sister, with whom they lived, in the City of Little Rock. He told them of the imminent danger of the land being lost on account of nonpayment of taxes, and, after attempting to frighten them about the land, offered $ 25 for the interest of the elder sister. This was declined, and negotiations continued, Jones raising his offers. Finally, he brought about an interview between them and Storthz, whom he claimed to represent. He told them Storthz would not give over $ 300 for the two interests, if that, and that he would get mad and leave. Storthz came, offered $ 50 each, which was declined, and he got mad and left, as predicted. He came back in a few minutes, and said that he would give $ 300 for the two interests, because the girls were orphans, but that the land was not worth it; that it would not sprout peas. The offer was accepted, $ 150 paid the adult sister, and in a few days an application was made to Pulaski Circuit Court for the removal of the disabilities of Bettie, at which hearing her relatives appeared and some others. The order was made removing her disabilities for the purpose of making the sale, which was then consummated, and the money paid. Storthz paid the witnesses and relatives who appeared at said hearing small sums for their services in attending same.

These suits were brought to set aside the conveyance as fraudulent, in that the lands contained valuable bauxite deposits, and that Storthz knew this, and the girls were ignorant of it, and he knowingly imposed on their ignorance. The suits are similar, except in Bettie's case there was a tender of the purchase price. There is a conflict in the evidence as to the statements and conduct of Storthz when the tender was made, but it is not considered material.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether there are bauxite deposits on the land, and consequently as to its value. It is clear that the price is a good one, if the land is not valuable for mineral deposits, and their presence is a matter of speculation and conjecture. There is no development upon this land, and witnesses differ as to the surface indications, and the effect and certainty of surface indications. Mineral rights in this vicinity have sold in many instances at $ 1 per acre.

The principal witness for the girls has offered $ 1,100 for the tract, or $ 766.66 for these two interests, or twice the amount paid by Storthz. This was some time after the sale to Storthz, and this witness places the value at the time Storthz bought at $ 800 for the entire interest, which is $ 350 more than the basis upon which Storthz bought. From the standpoint of the witnesses for the girls, the price is not so shockingly...