West v. Wayne

• Decision Date: 30 April 1831
• Parties: WEST v. WAYNE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 Mo. 16

WEST

v.WAYNE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1831.

APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF RANDOLPH COUNTY.

M'GIRK, C. J.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court in chancery. The bill states that in the year 1828, West, the complainant, and Wayne, the respondent, with many others fitted themselves out with outfits of goods for the Sante Fe trade; that after they had left the jurisdiction of the State, somewhere on the Arkansas river, West wishing to return home, sold his goods to the amount of $1,100 to Wayne; that West refused to sell his goods to Wayne, unless he would give such security as West had given to those of whom he bought the goods, which security was a mortgage on land and negroes; whereupon Wayne told him that he possessed land and negroes in this State in the county of Boone; that the contract was then closed, and Wayne gave a mortgage to West to secure the payment of the money for a negro woman and several children and one quarter section of land, all in the county of Boone. The bill then avers that these representations of Wayne induced him to sell his goods as above stated; that West then started back home; that after having traveled some miles, he met a company of traders going to Sante Fe; that he informed the company what he had done; that some of that company who knew Wayne, told him that he would lose his money; that Wayne owned neither negroes nor land; that he, West, was advised by some of the company that Wayne was in fact worth nothing, and he had better go back and take his goods, or go on to Sante Fe and get his pay there. West went back and told Wayne what he had been informed. Wayne did not deny the truth of the report. West then demanded his goods to be delivered up to him, alleging that a fraud had been practiced on him. Wayne refused to rescind the contract, unless West would give him his note or bond for $100. West alleges that that transaction took place in a country where no civil law existed, and not having it in his power to redress himself otherwise than by force, and seeing the extreme probability of losing the money and goods, he did, to save himself from that loss, give to Wayne his bond for $100 for the consideration of getting the goods back again; and that he did then get his goods back again. He further alleges that he has been sued on the bond in a court of law, and that judgment has been rendered against him, and execution is threatened, &c. The bill prays that the judgment may be perpetually enjoined. Wayne answers the bill, and admits that on the Arkansas river he did buy the goods of the complainant to the amount alleged, and that he then made his note for the payment of the same to the complainant. He then denies that he ever gave the complainant any mortgage on any species of propcrty by description either real or personal. He says he admits the note he gave for the payment of the money for the goods, contained a clause by which he did acknowledge his property generally to be bound for the payment of the money, and denies positively that either land or negroes were named in the said instrument, and he says he never made any other writing save as above. The defendant admits that he may have represented to the complainant that he was the owner of some slaves or negroes, but he denies that he represented to him that he was the owner of any land at that time. He admits he owned no land, and insists that he did then own some negroes, and does yet own some negroes; he denies the complainant ever charged him with being insolvent, and says he was not insolvent then, nor is he yet insolvent. The defendant says he admits that on the next day after the purchose of the goods was made, the complainant became dissatisfied with the sale of the goods and came back and requested him to rescind the contract and give up the goods, and that the defendant was unwilling to do so, unless the complainant would give him $100 for his contract and his trouble, which sum the complainant agreed to give, and gave the bond sued on to secure the payment of the money. Then the goods were delivered to the complainant. He asserts that he never used any means or acts to induce the complainant to sell the goods to him, other than as above set forth, and says he made no declaration relating thereto, that was not strictly true. The complainant put in a replication and the cause was heard on the bill and answer, and on the evidence which is in substance as follows: That the defendant owned no land nor negroes, except the one-half of a small negro boy. That otherwise he was worth little or nothing, at the time he bought the goods and...