Wilkins v. Bancroft, 42864
| Decision Date | 27 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 42864,42864 |
| Parties | Edwin L. WILKINS v. Joseph C. BANCROFT et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Joe N. Pigott, McComb, Mounger & Mounger, Tylertown, for appellant.
B. D. Statham, Magnolia, Norman B. Gillis, Jr., McComb, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi, in which the court awarded the appellee a judgment of $25,000, the same being the difference in the amount owed for the purchase of an assignment of an oil, gas and mineral lease and the amount actually paid the appellant by the appellee for said purchase.
Joe C. Bancroft, Frederick A. Kullman, and Joseph Sager filed a bill of complaint against Edwin L. Wilkins, appellant, in the Chancery Court of Pike County in which the complainants averred that 'in the latter part of April, 1960, or the early part of May, 1960, the complainants, each acting by and through complainant Joseph C. Bancroft, entered into a partnership agreement or joint venture' in which the complainants and defendant proposed to purchase through Edwin L. Wilkins an assignment on an oil, gas and mineral lease on the Longino tract consisting of 640 acres in Lawrence County, Mississippi, which 640 acres had been leased to A. C. Barton and James S. Attaya on March 6, 1959.
The complainants alleged that Wilkins had represented that the lease assignment would be for a consideration of $75,000, and that it was agreed that the complainants would pay $37,500 or $12,500 for each one-sixth interest, and that Wilkins and his associates, who were his father and brother, would pay the other one-half, or $37,500; that Wilkins made demands on the complainants for their part of the consideration which was paid to Wilkins for application by Wilkins to the assignors on the total consideration; that pursuant to said payment the assignors on May 6, 1960, did execute an assignment which vested the record title thereto in Bancroft for a one-half interest, which interest was held by Bancroft in trust for the other complainants and the other one-half interest in Wilkins.
Complainants charged further that the true consideration for the assignment was in fact $23,500, and not $75,000; that false and fraudulent misrepresentations had been made by Wilkins to the complainants and prayed for an accounting by Wilkins as to the actual cost and judgment against Wilkins for the difference in one-half the amount of the actual cost and $37,500, the amount paid Wilkins by the complainants for transmittal to the assignors of the lease.
A general demurrer was overruled. A combined motion to strike and special demurrer pleading the statute of frauds was overruled. In response to a bill of particulars, the complainants filed a copy of an August 5, 1960 letter signed by Wilkins and Bancroft, which letter was said to have been dictated by both parties and was addressed to Samuel Lang, who, being the law partner of Fred Kullman, one of the complainants, appeared to own a one-twelfth interest (one-half of the one-sixth Kullman interest).
An amended bill of complaint was filed which named Samuel Lang as a complainant.
The defendant, appellant, answered under oath in which he denied all of the material allegations of the complaint, as amended, stating that he, individually, purchased the assignment of the lease from A. C. Barton and James S. Attaya and 're-sold' one-half interest in the same to Bancroft for $37,500; 'that in order to avoid the unnecessary expense of separate assignments the defendant agreed that A. C. Barton and James S. Attaya place the name of Joseph C. Bancroft as a grantee to an undivided one-half interest in the assignment from the A. C. Barton and James S. Attaya'; and that he did not execute the memorandum-letter dated August 5, 1960. This letter was acknowledged before a notary public, Mrs. Gladys R. Summers, Mr. Bancroft's secretary.
The record contains a copy of the Assignment of Oil and Gas Lease executed on May 6, 1960 by James S. Attaya and A. C. Barton. This assignment, in consideration of $10, paid, and other good and valuable considerations, sold, transferred, set over, assigned and warranted unto Edwin L. Wilkins an undivided one-half interest and to Joseph C. Bancroft an undivided one-half interest, together with all rights and privileges accorded under said lease, subject to other leases on the property.
The letter of August 5, 1960 came about because the appellee was suspicious that something was wrong. He had tried to contact Mr. Wilkins for several months, and finally got him in his office. In the meantime, Bancroft had employed a detective agency, and they had set up a dictaphone in his office, which recorded the conversation. This letter was dictated there in reference to their conversations, and stated in part:
'Dear Sam:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Miller
...that the admission of a tape recording and transcript into evidence under like circumstances was fully justified. Wilkins v. Bancroft, 248 Miss. 622, 160 So.2d 93 (1964). We take this opportunity to clarify our position. An attorney's actions in secretly tape recording conversations with ad......
-
Attorney M. v. The Mississippi Bar
...the admission of such recordings into evidence is sometimes "fully justified." Miller, 484 So.2d at 338; see also Wilkins v. Bancroft, 248 Miss. 622, 160 So.2d 93 (1964) (surreptitious recording properly admitted into evidence to impeach adverse party). We hasten to note, however, that the ......
-
In re Estate of Baker, No. 1998-CA-01164-SCT.
...by the admission of the statement into evidence. ¶ 16. We have long accepted audio tapes as admissible evidence. Wilkins v. Bancroft, 248 Miss. 622, 160 So.2d 93 (1964); Ray v. State, 213 Miss. 650, 57 So.2d 469 (1952). Further, admission or suppression of evidence is within the discretion ......
-
CHAPTER 10 HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
...36 (5th Cir. 1963) (imposing a constructive trust on the unfaithful fiduciary and also awarding exemplary damages); Wilkins v. Bancroft, 248 Miss. 622, 160 So.2d 93 (1964) (awarding the plaintiff joint venturer the amount fraudulently obtained when the defendant joint venturer falsely repre......