Watson v. Phipps

• Decision Date: 18 March 1930
• Citation: 99 Fla. 568,126 So. 778
• Parties: WATSON v. PHIPPS et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

126 So. 778

99 Fla. 568

WATSON v. PHIPPS et al.

Florida Supreme Court

March 18, 1930

En Banc.

Suit by Frank G. Watson, individually and as executor of the last will and testament of Jennie E. Watson, deceased, against John S. Phipps and others. From an adverse decree complainant appeals.

Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Vendor having testified in another's suit that she was satisfied with contract, vendor's executor could not recover on ground of fraud. Where the owner of land contracts to sell it to one who had authority to sell the land, the owner relying upon the representations of such person as to its character and value, and the owner afterwards acquires information indicating that the vendee had not correctly stated to the owner the nature and value of the land and that another person was willing to buy at a higher price, and the owner is made a party defendant and testifies as a witness in a suit brought by a third party against the vendee, such third party claiming all the rights in the land procured by the vendee from the owner, and the owner testifies in the suit that she is 'thoroughly satisfied in all respects with the manner in which' the vendee procured from the owner the contract for the sale of the land, and the suit in which the owner is a party and testifies results in an adjudication against the vendee in favor of the third person who claimed the rights of the vendee in the land, the executor of the owner cannot after her death claim against the third person on the ground that the deceased owner was misled to her injury in selling to the vendee. The conduct of the owner with reference to her sale to the vendee after she had full knowledge of the value and character of the land and of the claim of the third party makes it inequitable for the owner's executor to recover as against the third party on the ground of the vendee's misconduct, after the rights of the third pary in the land as against the vendee have been adjudicated.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; C. E Chillingworth, judge.

COUNSEL

Crawford & May, of Jacksonville, and Lothrop Withington, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Fleming Hamilton, Diver, Lichliter & Fleming, of Jacksonville, for appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On September 14, 1927, a bill of complaint was filed in the circuit court of Palm Beach county by Frank B. Watson, as an individual and as executor of the last will and testament of Mrs. Jennie E. Watson, against John S. Phipps, John C Gregory, Porte F. Quinn, and Palm Beach Company, a corporation, in which it was alleged, in substance, that in 1921 Jennie E. Watson, a resident of Massachusetts, being owner of described property in Palm Beach county, Fla., by correspondence with Porte F. Quinn of West Palm Beach, Fla., made Quinn her agent to sell the property. After various communications between the various parties, Quinn visited Mrs. Watson in Massachusetts and there stated to her that the price she asked for the land 'was too high; that there were eighty acres of back land and only twenty or twenty-two acres of front land that was of any value; that the back part of the land was low and was a kind of a marsh; that he could probably sell the land for $60,000.00 but it would take time; that he would take it over himself and pay $45,000.00 for it, paying $10,000.00 cash and giving a three year mortgage for the balance at six per cent. interest; that that was the best he could do; that by listing it as a broker he could probably get more but it would take a long time; that at the time of said interview said Quinn knew that Jennie E. Watson looked to him to advise her as her agent with all the skill, judgment and discretion which she might expect from him as her real estate broker, and the said Jennie E. Watson, believing the situation required of Quinn absolute fidelity, relied upon said Quinn's judgment, opinion, statements and representations, particularly the representations that he could not close any deals and that it would take some time to sell the property, finally consenting to sell said land to said Quinn as the purchaser; that following the obtaining of said property by said Quinn the defendant John S. Phipps claimed and asserted that said Quinn was, at the time he received said contract and deed from said Jennie E. Watson, the agent of said Phipps for the purchase of said property and that whatever property said Quinn acquired thereafter was held by said Quinn as trustee for said Phipps, who for the purpose of maintaining said claim brought a suit in equity against said Quinn in which the said Jennie E. Watson was named as a party defendant by reason of the fact that she held the aforesaid mortgage. This claim the defendant Quinn vigorously denied and assured the said Jennie E. Watson that the claim was without foundation and was merely an attempt by said Phipps to get the property from him. The said Jennie E. Watson believed the assertions of said Quinn and never knew that in truth said Quinn was acting as the agent of said Phipps, the said Jennie E. Watson having deceased before the final determination of said litigation and the establishment of the fact that said Quinn was acting for said Phipps; that by reason of the facts hereinbefore alleged the said Quinn never acquired an indefeasible title to said land as against said Jennie E. Watson and that the defendant Phipps by operation of law can only take the benefit of said Quinn's contract cum onere and subject to the equities of said Jennie E. Watson, including the right of said Jennie E. Watson to repudiate the contract and deed procured by said Quinn, and rescind the same because secured by fraud; that said Jennie E. Watson departed this life, testate, on the 30th day of December, 1926, and by her last will and testament, duly probated, complainant is the devisee of said land; that complainant hereby offers to do equity in the premises and hereby tenders to such of the defendants as may be found by this court to be entitled thereto said sum of ten thousand dollars paid by said Quinn to said Jennie E. Watson and hereby further tenders such sum for taxes on said land and interest on said mortgage note as may have been paid by said defendants or any of them, and lawful interest on said sums, and complainant hereby further tenders said mortgage and note for cancellation.'

'The premises considered, your orator respectfully prays:

'1. That the court find and decree that said defendant Porte F. Quinn was the agent of said Jennie E. Watson and that the said false representations and fraudulent concealments were a fraud upon said Jennie E. Watson sufficient to vitiate said contract and deed, and that said contract and deed be rescinded and cancelled and complainant be decreed to be the owner in fee simple of said land.

'2. That an accounting may be had under the direction of the court to ascertain the sum of money complainant should pay into the registry of the court for and on account of moneys paid to said Jennie E. Watson and for interest thereon, and for taxes and interest thereon.

'3. That the said deed from said Porte F. Quinn to said John C. Gregory be cancelled as a cloud upon complainant's title to said land.

'4. That the defendants hereto and all persons claiming by, through and under them, and each of them be enjoined from asserting any claim to or interest in said land.

'5. That complainant may have any other and further or different relief in the premises as to which he may, either individually or as executor of the will of said Jennie E. Watson, in equity and good conscience be entitled.'

The bill of complaint referred to a prior suit between some of the parties involving the lands in controversy. Defendant Phipps presented the following demurrer:

'1. The complainant's action is barred by laches.

'2. The complainant's action to rescind was waived by the acceptance of benefits under the contract with Quinn after knowledge of the alleged fraud.

'3. Upon the facts alleged in said bill, it affirmatively appears that complainant cannot maintain the within action against this defendant in this court.

'4. The allegations of said bill are insufficient to show that the defendant, Porte F. Quinn, was the agent of said Jennie E. Watson prior to and at the time of the transaction alleged in said bill, between said Quinn and said Jennie E....