Paynter v. Littlefield
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Scott Chancery Court; Wm. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The decree should be reversed on the evidence alone. The parties dealt at arm’s length with each other. The deal was made after due investigation and full knowledge of all the facts. There was no fraud nor false representations made by appellant. No offer to rescind was made nor effort to put appellant m statu quo. 24 A. & E. Ene.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott Chancery Court; Wm. A. Falconer, Chancellor; 1. The decree should be reversed on the evidence alone. The parties dealt at arm’s length with each other. The deal was made after due investigation and full knowledge of all the facts. There was no fraud nor false representations made by appellant. No offer to rescind was made nor effort to put appellant m statu quo. 24 A. & E. Ene. L., 625; 6 Cyc. 312-314. If Littlefield ever had the right to rescind he forfeited it and is estopped. 1 Paige on Cont. 222. On discovery of fraud rescission must be offered at once. 192 U. S. 232. 2.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The nature of this suit appears from the findings of fact made by the court below, from which we take the following recitals. On and previous to August 23, 1915, C. G-. Littlefield and Y. Y. Littlefield, his wife, were the owners of a farm of 280 acres in Cloud County Kansas, of which 200 acres were in cultivation, and the balance in pasture, and the land was highly improved. It was at that time, however, encumbered with a first mortgage for $5,000.00, and a second mortgage for $3,600.00, which embraced also a number of head of live stock and the farm implements on the place. About this time…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cady v. RainwaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917