W. T. WADE, APPELLANT,
v.
W. C. MOORE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer to a bill seeking rescission of a land sale contract. The vendee, after defaulting on payments and surrendering possession, alleged fraud regarding the land's acreage and prior deeds. The court found no equity in the bill, as the vendee's possession was undisturbed and potential harm was redressable at law.
No, the bill lacks equity. The court held that the vendee's voluntary surrender of possession after default, coupled with the absence of any interference with possession or threat to title, meant there was no actionable harm redressable in equity, especially when legal remedies might be available.
“If legal fraud was In fact perpetrated upon the vendee, who by surrendering up possession to the vendor, has terminated and rescinded the contract, there is nothing to indicate wherein possible harm has, or may be, done him, not redressable in a court of law;”
Establishes the court's reasoning that the vendee's alleged fraud claim lacked equity because harm was not demonstrated and legal remedies might exist.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA conditional vendee defaulted on an installment payment after nine months of possession and voluntarily surrendered the property to the vendor. The v…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
After the conditional vendee had enjoyed the possession of the realty for nine months, and having failed to pay an installment of vthe purchase money, he voluntarily, surrendered possession to the vendor and then filed his bill to rescind .the contract and prayed that the initial payment be declared a lien upon the property. Under the contract of sale all payments made were in case of forfeiture to be treated as rent.
To work out an equity under these rather unusual circumstances it is alleged that prior to the making of the contract, which described the lands in the usual way. the vendor pointed out to the vendee, a stranger, a particular seven acre tract peculiarly adapted to his needs as a truck garden, as being within the eighty acre tract, named in the contract, whereas about half of this seven acres was not in fact contained therein, and also it is alleged that fifteen or more years before the vendor had made deeds to twenty other acres of the tract, and that these facts became known to' the vendee after the maturity of the unpaid note, but just before _the contractual thirty days of grace before forfeiture expired.
There is no hint that the possession of the vendee was in any wise interfered with or threatened as to any portion of the lands in fact or supposedly to be covered by the contract, nor is there any showing that the vendor could not comply with the contract which called for a title at its termination. If legal fraud was In fact perpetrated upon the vendee, who by surrendering up possession to the vendor, has terminated and rescinded the contract, there is nothing to indicate wherein possible harm has, or may be, done him, not redressable in a court of law;
As to the promissory notes they are barely mentioned, except in the prayer asking their return, no hint that their return has ever been requested, demand made by the payee upon them, or that they may be negotiated.
The bill is wholly wanting in equity and the demurrer thereto was properly sustained. ,
Order affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whit- * field, J. J., concur.