Kimball v. West

1. When a contract for sale of lands is fully executed by a conveyance with a covenant of warranty, and the payment of the purchase-money, the remedy for a defect of title is by an action on the covenant. 2. A party declining to pursue that remedy, and applying to a court of equity to rescind the entire contract, must show very clearly that such a rescission is necessary to the ends of justice. 3. If, therefore, on or before the final hearing, the vendor makes and tenders a perfect title, no rescission will be decreed unless the vendee has suffered great loss or injury by the delay, and not then if such loss or injury can be fairly compensated by damages.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. Kimball and Trask brought their bill in chancery against West, to rescind a contract for the sale of laud of which they were purchasers from him. The contract was an executed one, West having conveyed the land — about four hundred acres in quantity — to the complainants’ agent, who had conveyed to them, and the purchase-money (§22,000) having been paid. The deed of West, the defendant, contained a clause of general warranty. The allegation mainly relied on by the bill to set aside the contract ivas that the defendant represented to the agent of the complainants, that the title to the land was good; that there was no incumbrance on it, nor adverse claim to it; when in truth and iu fact an action of ejectment was then pending for one hundred and eighty-four acres of it against the defendant, iu which judgment was afterwards rendered against him; that the land so recovered in the suit against the defendant was the most valuable part of the tract, and without which the complainants would not have made the purchase; aud that the defendant fraudulently concealed the existence of this suit, and represented the title to the whole to be perfect. On the question of concealment and fraudulent representation testimony was taken on both sides, which did not leave the matter free from doubt. This part of the matter, however, was unimportant iu the view which this court took of the case. It appeared from the record that before the cause in the court below came to a final hearing, the defendant purchased the outstanding aud conflicting title to the one hundred and eighty-four acres, and tendered to the complainants such conveyances as made their title perfect. The coui’t, therefore, dismissed the bill, but decided that the defendant should pay the costs of the suit. From this decree of dismissal the complainants appealed.