James Moore Wayne

“ Before they executed the deed, the complainants knew where the land is situated, and where the evidence of their title is recorded, and could have ascertained whether the representations made by Black were true.
If Black made all the representations charged in the bill, they then knew that some of them were untrue, and were put on their guard as to the rest.
Misrepresentation of a matter, where a party was capable of seeing whether it was right or not, is no ground for relief. ”

“ Towards the latter end of the last century, the State of Massachusetts established a lottery for the sale of some lands in Maine; and one Zenos Parsons drew a prize of 1920 acres, being lot number one in township No. 33.
On the 25th of March, 1799, Parsons conveyed to Aaron Putnam, of Charlestown, Massachusetts, for the consideration of six hundred dollars, twelve hundred and twelve acres of the said land, being an undivided interest. Putnam had three children, two sons, and a daughter. The daughter married Tyler, and they were the complainants and appellants in the present cause. ”

“ The bill, answer, and evidence, establish complainants' proposition of fraud, on the part of Black, in several particulars, either of which is sufficient to entitle them to a decree in their favor.
1. As to complainants' title and the evidence of it, and Black's misrepresentations concerning it.
2. Black's misrepresentations as to the number of acres.
3. Black's misrepresentations as to incumbrances on the land, and particularly of his lien thereon for taxes, alleged to have been paid by himself.
4. Black's misrepresentations of the value of the land. ”

“ Phebe Hendrick says that Black said, that the number of acres might be two hundred and fifty, but could not exceed three hundred acres. Mrs. Soule says the same. These statements are so inconsistent with the narrative given by Black in his answer of his and his father's agency for many years, for Tilden, who was the owner of a part of the Parsons grant, for which, as the agent of Tilden they had paid the taxes for more than twenty-seven years, that it must be concluded he concealed and misrepresented the quantity to the complainants to induce them to sell. ”

“ On this principle the land was worth about $4.45 an acre, or $2,688.36, in November, 1846, date of deed of Tyler and wife o Black.
The denials of the answer are thus overcome, and the bill is maintained.
The counsel for the defendant in error made the following points, viz.:
The court has no jurisdiction. The value of the matter in controversy is one of the points at issue in the case. The proofs fail to show the land to be worth $2,000. It is not worth over 50 cents per acre, as shown by respondent's witnesses. ”

“ A purchaser is under no legal obligation to make a true disclosure of his motives. Vernon v. Keys, 12 East, 632, 637, 638.
Point 5. The misrepresentation must be of something, in regard to which the party places known trust and confidence in the other. If the party had no right to place reliance upon it, and it was his own folly to give credence to it, it will not avoid the contract. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. sects. 197, 199.
Before any of the representations complained of were made, Black assured Dr. Tyler that he would give no information whatever, unless paid therefor ”

“ There was no inadequacy of price.
The inadequacy, to be evidence of fraud, must be so gross as to shock the conscience. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. §§ 244, 245, 246; 1 Sugd. Vend. [*422, 423,] 318, 319, and cases there cited. Here is no satisfactory proof of such inadequacy as would even amount to damage. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. § 203. The consideration, on Black's part, was the $100 paid, the amount due for taxes and interest, and his claim for trouble and expenses, in discovering and notifying the heirs. ”

“ This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maine, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed, by this court, that the decree of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said Circuit Court, with directions for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court. ”

“ He made no representation as to the number of acres.
This charge is not made the subject of a particular interrogatory, but is covered by interrogatories 7 and 16; and is denied in the answer.
Black stated that he 'did not know how many acres belonged to said Aaron Putnam;' he could not have known. The statement of the number of acres, if made, was a mere matter of opinion, so understood by all parties, and there is no evidence that it was insincere.
A misrepresentation must be of something more than a mere matter of opinion. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. 179; Hepburn v. Dunlop, 1 Wheat. 179. ”

“ The deceit must be such as ordinary prudence would not protect the party against. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. sect. 200, a.
Point 7. Black's claim on account of taxes paid, &c., is valid in foro conscientiae. Complainants will not be entitled in equity to the relief prayed for, until provision is made for that claim.
They have never offered to pay him if he would rescind the contract ”