26 Gratt. 467 | Va. | 1875
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of debt by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error upon tvro bonds—one for $1,900, payable one day after date, and the other for $491.55, payable on or before the 1st of July 1869, both bearing the same date, the 24th of February 1869. They are executed to Milly Rice, the intestate of plaintiff below, and signed “ Mary B. Brown, adm’x of A. B. Brown,” with a (seal) annexed.
The defendant tendered two special pleas under the statute in bar of the action, both of which were rejected by the court. The second plea is substantially a plea to this effect. That the said Milly Rice, plaintiff’s intestate, in her lifetime “fraudulently procured the execution of the said writings obligatory in the declaration mentioned by the defendant, as administratrix of A. W. Brown, for and in consideration of the one-half of two notes not under seal, which had been executed to her in her lifetime by defendant’s intestate, and J. G. Brown as partners,'in their firm name of A. W. & J. G. Brown, by falsely and fraudulently representing to her, the said defendant, that the said notes were still “unpaid, valid, and in full force in law against the estate of A. W. & J. G. Brown, when, in truth and in fact, both of the said notes were then barred by the statute of limitations; which fact was well known to the said Milly Rice, but was fraudulently concealed from the defendant.
The averments by the first plea are more in detail. It sets out the dates of the notes of A. W. & J. G. Brown, and when payable; the death of J. G. Brown,
Both pleas are, that the bonds were executed by her in her character as administratrix, and not in her individual right, or as her personal obligations, as she had
It is contended for the defendant in error, that the misrepresentation alleged by the pleas is a misrepresentation as to matters of law, and that such misrepresentation does not constitute fraud, because the law is presumed to be equally within the knowledge of all the parties. But whilst the legal proposition is in general true, it is also true that, “if a man dealing with another misleads him, and takes advantage of his ignorance respecting his legal position and rights, though there be no legal fraud, the case may come within the jurisdiction exercised by courts of equity.” Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, p. 90-1.
Mistake also, as well as fraud, is a ground for relief in equity. And whilst mistake, in matter of law, cannot in general be admitted as ground of relief, the maxim juris ignorantia non exousat is not universally applicable in equity. “ Mistake in law, to be a ground of relief in equity, must be of a material nature, and the determining ground of the transaction.” It was precisely so in this case. It may be a misapprehension
If the mistake of law, or as to his private right, be that of one party only to the transaction, though the other party was not aware of it, a court of equity may, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, grant relief. “ But if ii appear that the mistake was induced or encouraged by the other party to the transaction, or was perceived by him and taken advantage of, the court will be more disposed to grant relief than in cases where it does not appear that he was aware of the mistake.” Kerr on Fraud and Mistake, p. 400. In support of this position the author cites vai’ious adjudged cases. He cites Broughton v. Hutt, where the heir at law of a shareholder in a company, the shares in which were personal estate, supposing himself, through ignorance of law, to be liable in respect of the shares, had executed a deed, taking the liability on himself, it was held that he was entitled to have the deed cancelled. Also, when a man having a legal security, gave it up in exchange for another security, upon the faith that the right which he gave up would be secured to him by the substituted security, but the substituted security proved a mere nullity, relief was given; also, where a woman renewed a note, believing that she was liable on the original note, relief was given. Ibid, p. 401. And other cases are cited. This last case is strikingly analagous to the case in hand if the defendant below executed her bonds under a mistake of law, that her intestate’s estate was liable upon the notes, for the one-half of which her bonds were given. But it is unnecessary now to decide how far courts of equity may go to relieve against a mistake of
It was represented (2nd plea) that the notes in the possession of Milly Rice, or her agent, the plaintiff below, were subsisting debts, “ unpaid”—that they were “valid” debts, being “in full foi’ee in law against the estate.” By the first plea, that they were “lawful debts,” outstanding against the estate. “Lawful,” “outstanding,” still in force. These representations implied that they were under seal, or, that sufficient time had not elapsed since right of action had accrued on them to bar a recovery. The question was not as to the law of limitation. If the notes were not under seal, there was no doubt that the law of limitation was five years. The point about which the defendant was not informed, and about which she had not the means of information, (the notes being in possession of Milly Rice, or her agent, and not even surrendered upon the execution of the bonds by defendant, but retained in her possession, and only credited by her with the amount of the bonds when delivered to her or her agent,) was whether they were of such a character as to be subject to the limitation? or at what time right of action had accrued upon them? and whether they were barred by the lapse of time since?—facts which would appear from the inspection of the notes. But these difficulties were anticipated, and all met and removed by the assurances which were given by the plaintiff, acting as the agent of Milly Rice, through the brother of the defendant, as averred in the pleas. It is not necessary that the fact which does not exist should be expressly stated. It is laid down by the eminent writer, already referred to in his book, p. 91, and supported by a citation of numerous authorities, that “to constitute a fraudulent representation the
The statements alleged to have been made by the pleas in this case, would naturally lead the defendant, to whom they were made, to conclude that the notes were under seal, or that five years had not elapsed since right of action had accrued on them. If they were lawful outstanding debts against the estate, they could not have been barred by the statute of limitations.
But it is argued, that the representations alleged by the pleas were not untrue; that a debt was not unlawful because it was barred by the statute of limitations. The allegation in one of the pleas is, that the debt was represented to be “ a lawful outstanding (that is subsisting) debt against the estate;” in the other, “ an unpaid” (that is subsisting) “valid” debt, being “in full force in law against the estate.” The fact is, the debt was barred by the statute of limitations in the lifetime of the intestate, and therefore could in no way be revived against the estate. Seig, adm’or v. Acord’s ex’or, 21 Gratt. 369, 371.) It was not therefore a lawful outstanding debt against the estate, or a subsisting, valid debt, in full force against the estate. The representation was therefore untrue in fact.
Again, it is argued that the defendant should not have relied upon these representations. She ought to have made further inquiry—she had the same means
These false representations induced the defendant to-execute the bonds, as is substantially averred in the first plea. The second plea avers, that by these false- and fraudulent representations the execution of the bonds by the defendant were fraudulently procured by the plaintiff’s intestate. We are of opinion that both pleas, though imperfectly and informally drawn, set out sufficient matters of equitable defence under the statute to bar the plaintiff’s action. We are of opinion that the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the declaration, but that it erred in-rejecting the special pleas, and therefore that the judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.
The judgment is as follows:
This day came again the parties by their attorneys, and the court having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid, and the arguments of counsel, is of opinion, for reasons stated in writing, and filed with the record, that the court below erred in rejecting the defendant’s special pleas. It is therefore considered that the judgment be reversed, the verdict be set aside, and the cause re
Judgment reversed.