White v. Flora
| Decision Date | 30 June 1815 |
| Citation | 2 Tenn. 426 |
| Parties | WHITE v. FLORA AND CHERRY. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Any representation of a falsehood or concealment of a truth, which, if correctly known, would probably be a reason for making the terms of the contract different, is a good ground for rescission in a court of equity. [[[
Thus, a contract to give one-half of a tract of wild land for finding it and investigating the title, will be rescinded, if the person contracting to render the services knew the situation of the land, and concealed the fact.
Mere inadequacy of price will not of itself be sufficient to set aside an agreement, though it may authorize a court of equity to refuse to enforce it, if applied to for that purpose; but it is, in many instances, strong evidence of fraud and imposition, and, coupled with other matters, such as the embarrassment of one of the parties, or the like, may authorize rescission. [[[[[[Acc. 10 Y., 94 and 202; 2 Y., 294; 8 H., 520; 1 Tenn., 39;2 Head, 289.]
The privilege allowed infants, after they have arrived at full age, to avoid their contracts made during infancy, is personal to them, their heirs, or some person claiming under them; no third person has a right to interfere.
Any act tending to show an unequivocal disposition not to abide by the contract made during minority, will avoid it; to bring suit is not essential.
A sale and conveyance of land by an infant, for a valuable consideration, is not void, but voidable only. [Acc. Sellars v. Davis, 4 Y., 503; McGan v. Marshall, 7 H., 121; Scott v. Buchanan, 11 H., 468.]
[Cited in: 3 Tenn. Chy., 231; 6 Pickle, 707.]
In Equity.
The bill charges that a grant issued to Lazarus Flora by the State of North Carolina for 274 acres of land, by whom previous to his death the same was devised to the defendant, Jesse Flora; that Jesse Flora, not knowing where the land was situated, applied to the complainant, and proposed to give him the one-half of the tract if he would find it and be at the expense of investigating the title, and to sell him the other half at a price to be fixed by valuers chosen for that purpose, payable in horses, and that a contract was made and reduced to writing in pursuance of such proposition; that the complainant made search in the land office and other places, and found the situation of the land; that afterwards Jesse Flora, with a view to cheat the complainant, sold and conveyed the whole tract to the defendant, Daniel Cherry, who at the same time had full knowledge of the equity on the part of the complainant. It is also charged that the complainant let Flora have a horse, bridle, and saddle at the price of one hundred dollars, and that it was agreed that, should the land be found, it was to stand as so much paid towards the purchase of half of the tract according to the agreement.
The bill prays that the land may be conveyed to the complainant.
Flora answers, in substance, that the agreement was made as set forth in the bill, but that White was guilty of great fraud and concealment in the transaction; that the land did not lie more than three miles from White's house, and that the situation of it was well known to White at the time the contract was made, although he represented himself to be entirely ignorant upon the subject; and indeed caused Flora to believe it would require great labor and influence to ascertain where the land lay. Flora admits that he sold and conveyed the land to Cherry, believing that White could not compel a performance of the contract, in consequence of the fraud and misrepresentation which he used; that he is willing to pay White the hundred dollars mentioned in the bill upon application, but denies that the horse, bridle, and saddle were received in part payment of the land.
Cherry's answer contains the same allegations as to the fraud practiced by White, of which transaction he admits he was well informed when he took the deed from Flora. He further answers that William Walton was the locator of the 274 acres, for which service he was entitled, by contract, to 54 acres which had been conveyed to him by Lazarus Flora in his lifetime, and that Walton had sold and conveyed the 54 acres to Willie Cherry, under whom Daniel Cherry claims as devisee; that Willie Cherry, after the death of Flora the elder, and during the infancy of the defendant Jesse Flora, for the sum of two hundred and five dollars, purchased of the defendant, Jesse and his mother, the tract of land, after deducting the locator's part, and that young Flora and his mother then executed a deed for the land accordingly; that when young Flora came of age, he paid him so much more for the land as made the whole sum amount to one thousand dollars; that this additional sum was given because it was thought that the land had been purchased by Willie Cherry in the first instance at too low a price, and he, Daniel Cherry, was willing that Flora should have what it was worth.
The proof in the cause shows that young Flora and a man by the name of Biggs had been hunting for the land, and, being unsuccessful, came to White's and inquired of him if he knew any thing of the land; he replied that he did not. Flora then pressed him to take a part of the land for finding it and paying the expense of investigating the title, which White at first refused to do; but finally, after much persuasion, the contract was closed as set forth in the bill. The parties then went to an attorney to have writings drawn; and the attorney is particular in stating that he was careful in making Flora understand the nature of the agreement. Flora said he was illiterate, and a stranger in the country, and was willing to make a liberal allowance for finding and securing the land. He said at the same time he had just come of age; that his mother had sold the land when he was an infant, but he had received no part of the consideration money, and had always determined when he came of age to dissent from the contract. The agreement was signed on the 18th day of August, 1807, and both parties went on to Nashville, which was only a few miles, to search the register's office. White got a copy of the grant, and the next day, on application to one Thomas Bradley, White found where the land was, and that it lay within two or three miles of his own house. The title has not been disputed.
There is no satisfactory proof going to show that White knew where the land was situated, before he made the contract with Flora.
The purchase of the horse, bridle, and saddle, was proved to be in the manner set forth in the bill; and that the day after Bradley told White where the land lay, White and Flora went together on the land, and verbally agreed that the half to be purchased by White should be valued by Bradley. Flora seemed then well pleased with the contract he had made. Some short time after this, Cherry made propositions to Flora, to get a deed for the land, which were at first rejected, but finally agreed to, and the deed made as set forth by Cherry in his answer. Cherry at the same time gave Flora a bond of indemnity against the claim of White.
To the specific execution of the contract sought by the complainant, the defendant's counsel in the argument objected on several grounds.
1st. The fraud alleged to have been practiced by the complainant upon Flora.
2d. The inadequacy of the consideration given by the complainant.
3d. Because the deed signed by Flora and his mother conveyed a legal estate, voidable but not void, which was affirmed by Flora when he came of age.
4th. Because at least that deed created an equitable interest prior to the interest of the complainant.
We shall notice these several objections in their turn.
1st. There is no proof of fraud on the part of White. It is true, when he was first applied to by the defendant Flora, he represented himself as wholly ignorant of the situation of the land, but it is equally true that no proof has been shown to us that this representation was false. If the fact had been with the defendant upon that point we should have no hesitation in saying the complainant ought not to have a decree. When the complainant was applied to, with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Zanone
...somewhat that of partners, with Russell putting absolute confidence in Lee to do what he said he would. It was held as far back as White v. Flora, 2 Tenn. 426 and cases there cited, repeated and approved in White v. Cox (1816), 4 Tenn. 79, 'Suppression of the truth, or suggestion of that wh......
-
Napier v. Stone
... ... fraud or imposition, and when coupled with other, even ... slight, circumstances, may authorize rescission. White ... v. Flora, [2 Overt. 426], 2 Tenn. 426. If, indeed, the ... inadequacy be such as, in the language of Lord Hardwicke, ... 'no man in his ... ...
-
McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co.
... ... election and intention to disaffirm, by any act of distinct ... and positive dissent, whatever may be its form or expression ... White v. Flora, 2 Tenn. 426; Drake v. Ramsay, 5 ... Ohio, 251; Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 Ill. 378; ... Manufacturing Co. v. Lamb, 81 Mo. 221. This rule is ... ...
-
Napier v. Stone
...it is strong evidence of fraud or imposition, and when coupled with other, even slight, circumstances, may authorize rescission. White v. Flora, , 2 Tenn. 426. If, indeed, the inadequacy be such as, in the language of Lord Hardwicke, `no man in his senses, and not under delusion, would make......