6 Ky. 324 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1814
OPINION of the Court, by
Calk ggjj t0 Poage 290 acres of land, for which he gave his bonds, conditioned to convey, with a covenant to relund, át the rate of two dollars per acre, if the whole or any Parc i'16 hind should be lost. Stephens having purchased from Poage and taken an assignment of Calk’s, bonds without recourse to Poage, cold to Peebles and assigne(l t0 him the. bonds upon Calk, for which Pee-bles agreed to give 1000/. ; 400/. of which he paid, and executed his obligation for the payment of the balance in one and two years. Upon these obligations Stephens brought suits and recovered judgments at law ; to «tay proceedings upon which, Peebles filed this bill. He alleges that Stephens fraudulently represented the land to be clear of dispute, except in a small part by a claim oí very inferior dignity’, when in fact he well knew that there were several other interferences with, elder patents, which covered thq whole, or the greater part of the land. He prays for a rescisión of the contract, a repayment of the amount advanced by him, and an injunction to stay proceedings upon the judgments at law. Stephens in his answer admits in substance the .terms 0# the contract as stated in the bill, but insists that the contract on his part was fair and without fraud, and denies that he knew of any interference except with the claim of which he informed Peebles prior to his purchase.
Upon a final hearing the court below dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill with damages and costs. From that decree Peebles has prosecuted this appeal. ■
In .deciding whether the contract in this case was fraudulent or not, we shall not take into consideration the interfering claim‘of which the appellant was informed by the appellee previous to entering into the contract: for although the representation made by the appellee as" to the nature and extent of that claim, was not perhaps perfectly correct, yet as the testimony upon this point is but vague and inconclusive, we would not think it' sufficient to avoid the contract, if it were in other respects unexceptionable. But the fact is incontrovertibly established, that the balance of the tract which was
The circumstance that the appellant agreed to look to Calk for his indemnity in case the' land should be i lost, can certainly afford no excuse to the appellee for, concealing the interfering claims. This circumstance, as the indemnity provided is evidently a very inadequate ©he, only proves,'at the same time that the • fact, of concealment is rendered more probable, that it is more prejudicial to the appellant. Good faith is essential to the validity of all contracts,1 Not less so in contracts where I the vendee undertakes to risk the title, than in contracts | «f a different description.
T he decree of the court below must be reversed with costs, and the cause remauded that a decree may: be entered agreeably to the foregoing opinion.