Houghton v. Graybill

Citations

• 82 Va. 573
• 1886 Va. LEXIS 76

Syllabus

<p>1. Rescission—Fraud—Evidence.—Fraud is never presumed, but must be alleged and conclusively proved, especially where the contract sought to be rescinded has been consummated by deeds delivered between the parties, even where the party against whom the relief is asked has not been perfectly clear in his dealings.</p> <p>2. Idem—Simplex eommendatio.—Mere general assertions as to value of, and prices offered for, the property, cannot be relied on by purchaser ; and if in reliance thereon, he neglects to examine for himself, it is at his own peril.</p> <p>3. Idem—Conditional contracts—Caseatbar.—H.andG. of Philadelphia, agreed that H. should give G. a factory in that city and §15,000, in exchange for two farms in Virginia, both to have a fortnight to examine and determine. H. examined the farms, reported material misrepresentations, and demanded reduction of boot, but rejected G.’s offer to cancel. Later, H. conveyed the factory to G., and executed a trust deed on the farms G. conveyed to him, to secure the §15,000. On default of payment and advertisement of farms for sale, H. brought his bill to enjoin the sale, and to rescind the contract for the misrepresentations discovered by him before and after the delivery of the deeds; but failed to prove any fraud. H. paid §500 into court below in lieu of the required injunction bond, and on dissolving the injunction, the court directed this money to be paid to G. as a credit on his debt, interest and damages. Oil appeal—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The injunction was rightly dissolved, and the fund under the court’s control properly disposed of.</p>