| Tenn. | Dec 13, 1890
Complainants purchased from Bowman, a resident of California, at the price of $200 per acre, a tract of land, represented to contain twenty-one acres and thirty-six poles, in Davidson County.
Complainants declined to purchase until they
It subsequently developed that two conveyances, embracing about four acres of the land, had been made, but were not noticed in the abstract.
The deed from Bowman to complainants was prepared by the abstract company.
Such are the substantial allegations of the. bill, which is brought to have the abstract company account.
There was demurrer, because the bill does not allege fraud, and there is no privity of contract between complainants and defendants. It was not necessary to allege fraud; a statement of facts is all that is necessary.
It is clear from the bill that complainants relied upon the abstract and the guarantee of its correctness, and would not. purchase without it. The abstract company held itself out as competent ,to do the work, and it is well understood that purchasers rely upon the work of such corporations as security for the perfectness of title, and expect them to point out any defects. Such was the case here. Complainants declined to purchase except upon an abstract.
The payment for the four acres already conveyed was the result of the unskillful work of the defendant. Holding itself out to the public as competent and skillful, it must be so, or supply the want by answering for the loss it brings about.
The allegations of the hill clearly make a privity of contract between the . purchasers and the defendant.a' Upon the work of the latter depended the acceptance or refusal of the offer, to sell.
Decree sustaining deinurrer is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.