Weaver v. Roberson

• Decision Date: 26 February 1910
• Parties: WEAVER v. ROBERSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

67 S.E. 662

134 Ga. 149

WEAVER v. ROBERSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 26, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

Equity will not reform a written contract because of mistake as to the contents of the writing on the part of the complaining party (who was able to read) and fraud of the other party which consists only in making false representations as to such contents, on which the complaining party relied as true because of confidence in the party making them, no fiduciary or confidential relation existing between the parties, and no sufficient excuse appearing why the complaining party did not read the contract.

Where a landlord sues out a warrant to disposses his tenant because of nonpayment of rent under a lease contract, and the tenant arrests such proceedings by filing a counter affidavit and giving the required bond, upon a trial of such case the tenant, upon proper pleadings and proof, can prevent eviction and a recovery of double rent by showing that the landlord was indebted to him at the time of the suing out of the warrant by reason of damages ensuing from a violation of his cross-obligations under the contract in an amount equal to the rent due when the warrant was issued; and, if such damages exceed the amount of rent due the landlord, the tenant can obtain judgment for such excess.

Error from Superior Court, Laurens County; J. H. Martin, Judge.

Action by M. V. Weaver against F. H. Roberson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Where a landlord sues out a warrant to dispossess the tenant for default in the rent and tenant files a counter affidavit and gives the required bond, on a trial the tenant can prevent an eviction and recovery of double rent by showing the landlord was indebted to him by reason of damages from the violation of his cross-obligations under the contract in an amount equal to the rent due when the warrant is issued, and can recover for any excess.

The defendant in error, as landlord, sued out a dispossessory warrant to evict the plaintiff in error, as his tenant because of failure to pay the rent provided for in the written contract between the parties, whereby the former rented to the latter for three years property in Dublin, Ga to be used for hotel purposes, and known as the New Dublin Hotel. The plaintiff in error filed her counter affidavit denying that she owed any rent, and gave the bond required by law. She filed an equitable petition to enjoin a trial under the proceedings above named, and to the order of the court dismissing the petition on demurrer she excepted. She alleged that the written contract between her and the defendant did not speak the truth of the agreement between them as a result of mistake on her part and fraud on his part; and she prayed that the writing be reformed so as to speak the truth. She alleged that she had implicit confidence in the defendant, who took advantage of the confidence reposed in him and drew a contract which did not contain all of the stipulations necessary to carry into effect their real understanding and agreement in the matter, though she was told by the defendant that it did contain such stipulations, and she signed it so believing; that she owed no rent because of overpayments made by her to the defendant and damages sustained by her by reason of his failure to perform his obligations provided for in the lease contract, whereby he was to make certain repairs and additions to the property rented; that, by reason of his indebtedness to her, she could prevent an eviction under the dispossessory-warrant proceedings, but could not recover in such proceedings the excess owing to her by him over and above the rent due by her to him, nor could she in such proceedings have the contract reformed to speak the truth. She contends, therefore, that she has a right in equity to have such proceedings enjoined, that she may have the contract reformed and obtain a judgment against the defendant for the amount due by him to her in excess of what she owed him for rent. The written contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the latter leased to the former the hotel property, was dated August 3, 1907, and provided for a lease of the property for three years beginning October 1, 1907. This contract contained many provisions, among which are the following: "The lessee contracts and agrees to pay rent under this lease to the lessor, his agents, executors, administrators or assigns, at the rate of two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month, to be paid monthly in advance on the first day of each month, without grace, during the continuation of this lease. *** It is understood and agreed between the parties that the lessor shall, as early as practicable, enlarge the hotel, by the addition of a third story, or such other plan as he may adopt, thereby increasing the capacity of the hotel to approximately forty-six (46) rooms above the ground floor." Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the lease contract are in terms as follows:

"(12) The lessor agrees to repair or replace all broken plastering, paint all wood work in need of paint, kalsomine or whitewash walls in the existing rooms and halls not already papered or in good repair, in conjunction with the other alterations above referred to. The work to be proceeded upon with reasonable promptness and completed as soon as practicable.

"(13) Upon the completion of the additional rooms and their being equipped by the lessor with usual necessary heavy furniture, consisting of bedsteads, springs, mattresses, pillows, dressers, washstands, with usual crockery ware, chairs and tables, the lessee agrees to receive said rooms as part and parcel of said hotel, and thereafter to pay, on demand of the lessor, rent for the remainder of the original term of three years at the rate of three hundred and twenty-five dollars monthly in advance, on the first day of each month, without grace, in the manner set forth in paragraph No. 6 above."

The petition prayed that the contract "be reformed and amended so that paragraph twelve thereof when reformed and amended will read as follows: The lessor, F. H. Roberson, hereby agrees to repair or replace all broken plastering, paint all woodwork in need of paint, kalsomine or whitewash walls in the existing rooms and halls not already papered or in good repair. Said work to be proceeded upon at once, and completed by October 1st, 1907; provided that if said work is not completed by said date, Oct. 1st, 1907, then the lessee, Mrs. Mattie V. Weaver, is to pay the lessor as rent for said hotel only one hundred and fifty dollars a month until said work is completed." The plaintiff alleged that the real understanding, as above set forth, was omitted from the contract "by mistake and misplaced confidence on the part of the plaintiff, and by fraud and deception on the part of the defendant, who personally drew the said contract, and who represented to her before she signed it that it contained all that was necessary to carry into effect their real contract as above stated." She further alleged that she "was not familiar with the rules for the construction of contracts," and believed at the time she signed it that the contract she signed in effect provided that the improvements as stated in paragraph 12 of the contract would be made by October 1, 1907, and that she paid the defendant $200 per month for the rent of the hotel for the months of October, November, and December, 1907, thereby paying to him $50 per month for these three months more than was really due him under the real contract, and as the written contract will exist when reformed. She prayed: "That the defendant F. H. Roberson be required to account to plaintiff for the $150 excess paid him by plaintiff as rent for said hotel in October, November, and December, 1907." In an amendment she alleged that the defendant had failed to make the additions increasing the capacity of said hotel to approximately 46 rooms above the ground floor, as provided in the contract; and, further: "The profits of said 24 additional bedrooms would reasonably amount to $200 per month over and above the rent which she agreed to pay for said hotel so enlarged and improved; and, by reason of said defendant's failure to add and furnish said additional rooms, your petitioner has lost said reasonable profits of $200 per month since November 1, 1907. Thus your petitioner has been damaged in the sum of $1,800 to date, and will continue to lose said monthly profits until said hotel is improved and enlarged in the manner prescribed in said paragraph 11 of said lease. These losses of profits and damages your petitioner recoups against the rent which she agreed to pay defendant under said lease, and she prays a judgment against him for the excess. *** These profits were contemplated by both parties to said lease when it was made. They are immediate profits of said contract of lease, and are capable of exact calculation." She further alleged that, "by the failure of said defendant to make said repairs called for by said paragraph 11 of said lease, said hotel was worth $50 per month less than it would have been with said repairs, *** and by reason of said defendant's failure to make said repairs and additions your petitioner has been damaged in the sum of $50 per month since the 1st day of October, 1907, or the sum of $500 to date. Until said repairs are made, your petitioner will continue to be damaged in the sum of $50 per month. All these damages your petitioner recoups against the rent which she undertook and agreed to pay defendant under said lease. *** Said additions and improvements could have been reasonably and practically done within three months from the date of said lease or by November 6, 1907."

K. J Hawkins and Jas. K. Hines,...