Wright v. Wright
| Decision Date | 12 June 1877 |
| Parties | Elon G. S. Wright and Altha J Wright v. Allen S. Wright adm'r and others |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Argued June 7, 1877
Appeal from Kent. (Hoyt. J.)
Bill to set aside a sale for fraud. Defendants appeal Affirmed.
Complainants recovered costs of this Court.
Loomis A. Miller for complainant.
Clute & Smith for defendants appellant. The right to rescind for fraud must be exercised within a reasonable time. Goodwin v. Burns 21 Mich. 214; Wilbur v. Flood 16 Mich. 45-6 Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. Bates 31 Mich. 168; Jewett v. Petit 4 Mich. 513; Jones v. Disbrow Har. Ch. 104; Dunks v. Fuller 32 Mich. 245; Masson v. Bovet 1 Den. 74. False expressions of opinion by a vendor are not ground for equitable relief. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. § 194; Bradley v. Bosley 1 Barb Ch. 125, 148; Ellis v. Andrews 56 N.Y. 83.
It is established beyond reasonable controversy that Sydnor J. Wright, of whom the defendants are administrator and heirs at law, sold to the complainant Elon G. S. Wright, who was his nephew, for the sum of $ 3600, a farm worth not to exceed one-fourth of that sum, and that he accomplished the sale by means of false assertions regarding its value and productiveness, and by deception regarding the timber upon it. There is reason to believe, also, that though the vendor's son and agent went with the purchaser to see the land, he contrived, by taking him an unusual route, to keep him away from those who would have been likely to give him more accurate information. And although much of Sydnor J. Wright's representations consisted of matters which must ordinarily rest in opinion merely, yet as he had been in the actual possession and cultivation of the land, and professed to be speaking from actual results, his representations were not matters of opinion strictly in the ordinary sense of that term, but combined opinion with fact to an extent that justified the purchaser in placing some reliance upon them. And on a review of the whole testimony we are satisfied that such a case of fraud is established as entitled the purchaser to have the purchase cancelled.
But defendants insist that the right to this relief, if it ever existed, has been lost by laches. This objection is based upon the fact that the purchaser took possession of the farm occupied and cultivated it for one season, and at the end of that time requested indulgence in the payment of interest on the unpaid purchase price, without raising any question of fraud in the sale, or requesting that it be rescinded. The main facts on which the defendants rely on this branch of the case are conceded or proved, and in most cases of fraud they would perhaps be sufficient to preclude relief. But this case has some peculiar features. The inadequacy of consideration was so gross that it seems reasonable to conclude that Elon substantially put himself in his uncle's hands in the transaction, laying aside the prudence he might have been expected to employ in dealing with others, and that after his discovery of the deceit, he may have hesitated from family reasons, to make public his grievance, hoping and trusting that an amicable arrangement might be effected in time. The relationship of the parties is entitled to great weight when the question is one of laches in taking hostile steps, and the same prompt and energetic proceedings which would be expected in other cases ought not to be demanded of near relatives, not only because they may naturally and commendably be reluctant to engage in litigation, but also because they ought to be able to rely more on substantial justice being voluntarily done them by a member of the family than by a stranger. The fact, also, that Sydnor J. Wright died before the fraud was discovered is also one of no little significance as tending to embarrass any claim for redress; and when all these facts are taken into consideration, it would be a very harsh and unreasonable application of the rule of law, to hold the purchaser barred of his equitable remedy. Reasonable promptness under the circumstances is all that can be demanded. There is evidence that Elon made to his sister, who had assisted him in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olitkowski v. St. Casimir's Saving & Loan Ass'n
...delay in starting court action, should, in equity, bar defendants from successfully advancing their own dereliction as a defense. Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 55. In large measure, whether equity should withhold relief on the ground of laches must depend on the facts and circumstances of the ......
-
Stonemets v. Head
... ... Cressler v ... Rees, 27 Neb. 515; White v. Sutherland, 64 Ill ... 181; Smith v. Countryman, 30 N.Y. 655; Wright v ... Wright, 37 Mich. 55. (6) If a vendor combines with a ... third person so that they conspire to mislead the purchaser ... as to the value ... ...
-
Stonemets v. Head
...92 S. W. 699; Jackson v. Collins, 39 Mich. 557; Picard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68; Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N. W. 947; Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 55; Smith v. Property Corporation (Court of Appeals, English) 28 L. Rep. 7; Haygarth v. Wearing, 12 L. Rep. 319 (cited with approval b......
-
Carpenter v. Mumby
...ought to be able to rely more on substantial justice being voluntarily done by a member of the family then by a stranger". Wright v. Wright, 37 Mich. 55, 56 (1877). Relatives, however, cannot be excused from suing indefinitely, without making any attempt to settle the claim beforehand. Back......