Opinion
June Term, 1824.
IN EQUITY
1. This Court on bill filed to correct mistakes in a deed will refuse its aid, though the mistakes should be obvious, if the deed was obtained under oppressive circumstances.
2. As to the money paid for the land, the bill did not offer a reconveyance, and pray to have it refunded, and the court, therefore, held that it could give no relief as to the purchase-money.
THE bill stated that Joseph Bennet was seized of a tract of land, which he purchased of Jesse Grantham, and on 11 December, 1792, conveyed to complainant 20 acres thereof, describing it by metes and bounds; afterwards complainant came to an agreement with Bennet for the purchase of the residue, 137 acres, at the rate of $1 per acre, and on 10 May, 1794, Bennet executed to complainant a deed for the same, describing it by metes and bounds. The tract of 20 acres was bid off by complainant at a sale of Bennet's property under execution, and when complainant purchased the 137 acres he agreed to give Bennet $1 per acre for the 20 acres also. After the purchase money was in part paid, Bennet endeavored to avoid delivering possession thereof, pretending that the conveyance was not good, because his wife had not joined therein, whereupon complainant brought suit against him, and Bennet agreed to deliver possession and pay the costs, which he did, and complainant then paid him the balance of the purchase money and took possession and cultivated the land during Bennet's life and for a long time afterwards, and complainant avers that it was Bennet's intention to convey the whole of the land which he purchased from Jesse Grantham. The bill then charged that since Bennet's death the defendants, his heirs at law, combining with one Brittain Hood, brought (197) an action of ejectment against complainant, and recovered a large part of the land; that the lines mentioned in the deed for 137 acres were erroneous and left out a large portion of the land; and the heirs, availing themselves of this error, entered on the part left out of the deed, and conveyed the same to Hood, who purchased with full notice of complainant's claim. The bill prayed that the mistake might be rectified. The heirs at law, answering, said they had sold their right to Hood, and disclaimed all title.
Hood in his answer stated that after the recovery in ejectment by the heirs he purchased their right, and denied any knowledge of Bennet's design to sell the whole of the land; but, on the contrary, averred that Bennet, being a man of weak mind, and connected by marriage with complainant, was prevailed on to convey a part of the land to him under a belief that it was a conveyance in trust. Bennet occupied the land afterwards, and often in complainant's presence said he had not sold to him. Afterwards complainant conspired with some of the neighbors to drive Bennet from the neighborhood, and Bennet was taken and beaten, confined and ill-treated; and while thus confined complainant forced upon him a note of one Bizzell for $40, and the sum of $4 in money, and then alleged that he had bought and paid for the land.
The cause was heard on bill, answer, and depositions, and the Court's opinion was delivered by
No doubt can be entertained but that it was the intention of the parties that the whole of Bennet's land should be conveyed to the complainant; but the circumstances attending the purchase (let Bennet's character have been so bad) were so oppressive as that he could not be considered a free agent in making the sale. And although (198) in the present proceedings the sale which he made cannot be disturbed, yet I think the Court ought not to assist in rectifying a mistake which was made in the deed obtained under such circumstances.
It may be asked whether Bennet shall retain the money paid and the land also. The answer is that the bill is not so framed as that relief can be given as to the money paid; if it were, and the complainant proffered to reconvey the land, which was conveyed to him, an inquiry of that sort would be made; or if there were a cross bill I should be for rescinding the contract and decreeing the money paid to be returned. As that is not done, and the complainant wishes the contract to be fully carried into effect, for the reasons given before, I think the bill ought to be dismissed.