1132 TAYLOR V. GORDON. [169 TAYLOR V. GORDoN. Opinion delivered December 21, 1925. 1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT—DEALINGS RETWEEN.—While an agent , or , trustee for the sale of property is not absolutely inhibited from purchasing the property himself, yet in an actlon by the principal or cestui que trust against the agent or trustee to set aside a transaction or to hold the agent or trustee to an accoufiting, the • . burden is on the agent or trustee to show, that: he acted in the • utmost good faith. 2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT—FINDING OF GOOD FAITH.—A finding by the chancellor that an agent met the burden of proving his good faith iri pUrchasing an oil and gas lease from his principal held not clearly against the preponderance. . PRINCIPAL AND AGENT—GOOD FAITH OF AGENT.—The obligation of • the agent to use good faith in buying'an oil and gas lease from ' his principal is .to be judged by the situation , and the relation of the . parties io each other, and not• by subsequent events not known to either which caused the value of the lease to be greatly incre'ased.' Appeal from , Ouachita Chancery Court, First Division; J. Y. Stevens, Chancellor ; affirmed. 0. E. Wes,tfall, and G. R. Haynie, for appellant. .Gaughan & Siff ord, for appellee. „ .Woon, J. This action was instituted by the appellant Against the appellee to recover the sum of $5,000. The appellant alleged that on or about the. 29th. of ,May, 1922, the appellee induced the appellant to permit, the appellee to handle and negoaate as appellant's agent the, lensing of certain lands for oil and, gas ; that appel-lee insisted that , he was in a position to . negotiate said lands to the advantage of appellant in that he would ,be able to secure a higher price than the appellant would be, able to do . ; that appellant and his wife, induced by these representations, executed to the appellee a lease on a certain tract of land in Ouachita County; that, after procuring this lease, appellee, on the 13th of October, 1922, with the further intention to defraud the appellant, executed and delivered a written assignment of the lease of the lands to one J. E. Gaughan, as trustee, naming as a consideration therein the sum of $25 per acre, when in
ARK.] TAYLOR V. GORDON. 1133 truth and fact the lease value of the lands at 'that time was $125 per acre, which the appellee well knew; that J. E. Gaughan never in fact purchased the lease, and 'did not pay any consideratiOn therefor, • and had • no interest therein, and that sueh pretended assignment Of the lease to him by the appellee was a fraudulent 'device to Conceal frem the appellant the true value of the lease, and to • give the appellee an opportunity to . sell' and assign the leaae for a much 'greater price , than the pretended cOnsideration mentioned in the 'assignment by the appel-lee to Gaughan;' ' that the appellee ' falsely • and 'fraudulently rePresented to the appellant that' he had' sold the lease described on apPellant's land to J. E: Gaughan for • the sum of . $25 per 'acre,' and that- appellee settled with the appellant on that basis ; that on' November '28, 1922, appellee 'sold the' oil and' gas •lease On appellant's land to 'one J. H. Snowden 'fOr $150• per aCre, making'a tOtal sum of $6,000; that appellant 'had- no' means of knoWing, anddid notknow, the appellee's fraudulent acta and Conduct as' above set forth in handling appellant's lands until long after appellee had finally assigned the lease to Snowden. 'The appellant' prayed' judginent against the appellee in the sum of $5,000, the difference between the aMount for whieh the appellee assigned the lands to 'Snowden and the. 'amount Paid . by' appellee appellant. . • Appellee, in his answer; admitted that the appellant waa the owner of the•lands 'described in the' complaint, but denied that he had induced the appellant and hia..Wife to execute io him • a written lease' ori' the lands' with' -the intent to cheat and 'defraud the appellant, and denied that he executed a lease to Gaughan astrustee 'with the intention to dheat and defraud the appellant. He, denied that the eXecution of :the assignment 'by the appellee 'to Gaughan as trustee, and the consideration named therein, was a fraudulent *device -or subterfuge eMploye'd by' the appellee to deceive the appellant and conceal from him the true value of the lease. He denied specifically the allegations' of fraud Set up in the complaint, and ' alleged
1134 TAYLOR V. GORDON. [169 in substance that the appellant was a negro and unfamiliar with business practices and values of lands or oil and gas leases, and requested the appellee to assist 'him in disposing of the oil and gas lease on appellant's land. To this appellee consented, and, in order to enable appel-lee to handle the lands to better advantage, appellee requested the appellant to execute an oil and gas :lease covering the lands described to the appellee, which tbe appellant did; that On or about the 13th of , October the appellant stated to the appellee; that he , .(appellant) ,could get $10 or $15,per acre for his lease and wanted appellee to sell it at that price ; that appellee then told the appellant that the lease was worth more than . $10 or 115. per acre,, and that he (appellee) would , give , appellant as much. as $25 per acre for the lease, -which at that time was a fair price for the same ; that the appellant accepted the offer; that other parties were interested with the appellee in the purchase, and for convenience,. it was agreed that title should be, conveyed to Gaughan as trustee for tbe benefit of the appellee and the other parties associated with him in the purchase ; that, ,since the sale of the oil and gas lease to the appellee, oil had been discovered -on the land adjoining the territory in which , :the land of the appellant was situated, causing the price of oil and gas leases to greatly increase in value, ,and that it was because of this fact that the appellant became dissatisfied and instituted this action. The appellant testified in substance that he had known the appellee for eighteen years ; that he executed to him a lease on 40 acres of land on 1\fay 29, 1922. Appellant.didn't know anything about oil and gas- leases, and had confidence in the appellee. Appellee had promised to help appellant out in handling his oil and gas leases. Appellant therefore made the appellee his trustee and agent to sell the lease on his land. Appellant received $1,000 for the lease which the appellee later sold to Snow-den and McSwitmey. On the 13th of October,. 1922, appellee sent word to appellant to come to town, and on .the 14th of October appellant went to Camden and appel-
ARlin TAYLOR 'V. GORDON. 1135 lee gave him $1,000, and stated that the lease had been sold: In the conversation appellee stated to appellant that he was not charging appellant for his services, but would like to have a little piece •of royalty. Appellant thought one goOd turn deserved another, and agreed to let the ` appellee have 'half of 'the roalty On 20 acres, fOr which the appellee paid $125. It was wortb more than that, but appellant thbught , that'appellee bad been looking out attendirig to the sale of the lease for him, and on that account 'he let appellant have the royalty at a reduced priCe. ' Appellee did not tell the appellant at that thrie the name of the party to whom he had sold 'the lease. Appel; lant 'asked appellee whe , wa§ going to pay ihe rental if they did•not drill the land, arid appellee " The other lellow;" but did not Say who the other felloW 'was, and appellant did not knoW to whom the appellee had sOld the lease until he obtained the second abstract. Just before appellee paid the appellant $1,000, leases were being sold on lands fnrther from production than appel-rant's land for $30 per acre, and on land a half mile hearer at $40 per acre. Appellant 'never Offered to Sell the land for $10 Or $15 per acre, and after he 'turriecj ihe leaSe' over tO the appelree, and before appellee paid hiin the $1,000, appellant had been offered from $22 to $30 Pei acre, and he told the • persons making the offers that he would'riot sell it for $1,000 per acre unless the Party would make arrangetnents -With apPellee tb bny, as . he (appellant) had turned the handling *of his lease over' to the aPpellee Afthr he turned the lease over to the appel-lee, he referred all Persons to him, as he understood that he hnd Made the appellee his agent to sell the leaSe.and he expected to n'aY the appellee for his trouble: APpellant testified 'that the appellee ne'ver told him that he would g ive $25 an acre for the lease if a p pellant. was willing , to take it, 'if apPeilee 'could get others to take part of it. A. man hy the name • Of Sutton had offered appellant 25 an acre With a ninety-day drilling contract; and ap pellant told Sutton that he had plaCed his, lease in appellee's hands,' and at Sutton's request gaVe Sutton an
1136 TAYLOR V.. GORDON. [169 order to appellee for the purchase of the lease at $25 an acre with a drilling contract. One or two days after appellant had signecl the ;order for Sutton, the.appellant and his wife came to town and received the payment from the appellee for the lease. Appellant, at that time did not tell the appellee about Sutton's offer, as it ;was then toQ late. ,The appellant testified that he was not posted on the value of oil and gas leases, as helad turned, the same over to the appellee. Twenty-five dollars an acre was not a fair price for the lease at , the time appellant sold the same to the appellee. Some time after the• appellant received the $1,000 from the appellee he ascertained from the new abstract , that the appellee had sold the lease for $6,000. Appellant had no:knowledge of who wasbuyino. the lease, as he , was fifteen miles from Camden 'when the lease was sold. He did not ask the appellee the name of the man who purchased the lease: The man who came out with the paper for appellant to sign told appellant that he (appellant) was not leasing, but; was' just givL ing the appellee permission to.lease same for the appel lant. . Appellant took his , word for it, and what he signed might have been . a lease. At the time the money , was paid, appellant did not ask the appellee for the lease that he might sign it. There was testimony on behalf of ;the appellant. to the effect that about the. time, on the 13th of October,
1922,. some :leases were selling on lands adjoining the Taylor tract at $30 per acre.. These leases were about two miles from . the Pat Marr well, which was. producing One . of; the, witnesses testified that. at that time he considered appellant's lease worth from thirty to thirty-five dollars per tacre. This witness stated that he was willing to pay that much money on the consideration of the fact that a well was to be drilled in that vicinity; that but for that fact the lease would not haye been worth that much money.. They had a speculative value on account of the location of the well to be drilled in that vicinity. One of the witnesses stated that he offered appellant $35 per acre for his lease, and that appellant
ARK.] TAYLOR V. GORDON. 1137 opelined, to take it. The witness did not know whether the Pat Marr well came in before the 13th or 14th of , October or not. . , . • • . • . Witness Patton ;testified . , for the appellant to ,the effect that he • had sold a lease , on a forty-acre tract in the neighborhood for $255, and on another forty for $235. He , ,sold a lease on one forty about a mile from appel: lant!s After the Pat Marr *ell came in. The lease , on the land in controversy in witness' opihion did not have any value to Witness . on the 13th of . Octoher. The buyers,were grabbing :what they could get, , It was , sho•n that .the Pat Marr well in that vicinity hegan to ,make oil on the 12th of October, 1922. A. M. Sutton testified for the appellee, to the effect that he was instrumental in s blocking . up the ' acreage and securing the drilling of 'the used . well in the Same , gection in Which 'the land owned by appellant was locathd. On ' October T3, 1922, •he tried to buy the leaSe on appellant's land.' The Pat Mari well had not come in at .that'time. Witness Paid Mrs. 'HugheS 02.50 pei acre for 460 acres, and Sam'McElroy $30 per acre for 20 acres that'joined appellanCs land on the north. He offered 'appellant $25 an acre, *hich WaS satisfactory to appellant, and , had wHtten ah order. authorizing the appellee to assign the lease to witriesS, which the adipellAnt signed.. Witness Made ah agreelnent With the appellant to 'start' a Well withih ninety' days, or 'pay bin]: $1 an * acre. 'About :that tinie $25 ` was the 'average per acre for leases in that vicinitY.'' =Witness . was familiar with the values Of land, and what was being paid for leases in that territory,. and before witness went in there leaseS had IDA ola for anything like $25 per acre. Ten . d011ars peiacie would have been a fair priee before witness •began * talking ' abont drilling on the HugheS land.' Witness 13resented -the order signed by the appellantIO: appellee' on the next day after 'same w ! as Signed,"and appellee told witness' that he had sold the lease two hours. before. Appellee asked Witness what he was giving, and Appellee; told witness that that was what he had received for it. The order signed
1138 TAYLOR V. GORDON. [169 by' the appellant instructed the appellee , ', to inake"an aSsignmerit of the lease to witneSS'for $25 an acre: The Pat Marr well in that vicinity had not come in : at that tithe'. When that well came in, after the 13th of October, it had a , material effectin figuring' the value of the feages in* that vieinity: The WitneSs further teaified that the agreement he had with the . appellant was that he would drill on . appellant's tract, and woilld give' tapPellant, $25 an acre, and begin drilling Within nihet3'r days, oi• 'pay rental from the date of the lease. APpellant wanted to sell the lease for $25 an acre, andistated to' WitneSs' that he Was suie'it WOuld be all light With the '4pellee'to 'let witness , have the lease, and gave witheSs'the_ order' to apPellee to that effect. Witness Campbell testified for the appellee ,that on the 13th of 'October, 1922, he paid $500 for ,4 : halt .intar, est in the lease of appellant's. land for 'hself and Ursery. The appellee was also , interested in the , purchase.. The lease was in the name . of Gaughan, trustee, to,whom it had,theen assigned by the appellee;,us trustee. This lease was sold about six:weeks laterito Snowden and McSwinney: At the time witness purchased, the interest for himself and , Ursery, he was not aware 'of any unusual or added yalue- to the property. on: account ;of , the Pat Marr well coming in after he ,purchased the interest. Witness was interested with the appellee in the purchase ofi oil and;gas leases. „The lease was assigned to. Gaughan as trustee for convenience.. There : was no, -understanding between the witness,, appellee and ,Ursery that witness would raund to appellee the amount witness:received:on sale of the lease if appellee should lose the suit. .But if appellee should lose the ,suit, witness would refund the money., Witness had , no knowledge that the purchase of the lease from , the apPellant was , not satisfactory. The $500 paid by witness represented the half interest of. . himself and TJrsery in the lease. • I Appellee testified in substance that he was in the mercantile supPly business' in Oetober, 192'2, at : Camden and
ARK.] TAYLOR .V. GORDON-1139 also working actively in tho Ouachita Valley,Bank as, yice president The appellant had been trading with the appellee for several years:.,: Appellee, had:extended appel, lant; credit when he, did not; have the, money, to; pay. Ppr supplies. Appellant turned4hedeasein controversy, ov,er to witness to; try to, sellfor, lint. Witness; finally, bo•ght therlease from the, appellant ,himself, on ,Oetober i2 192. Appellant told the appellee ;that he thought the lease,was worth, .$25, an acre, . as that -was , what was being paid ;for leases in that neighborhood, and 'stated, that .he was ing, to Jake that , for , his f , orty. Appellee stated to; appellant , that he didn't , want to , ganTble that , on it him:- self; , but , would get, some , one t else to go, in . with him aro ,t4e,payt ,of ; it, and that appellee would pay; thatmuch for it. Appellant ; replied, that :it didn'.'t make ianyldifference , so he. gotIthe money. ,„ On, the, next day; October 13th, . appellee sent word to appellant !to, come , .to toiwn. Appellee , had made, arrangements with , .Campbell ,And STrsery to go in with him to ;purchase; the :lease:. c:IThey ,deposited the . money,with,,the, witness at . the! .store , to appellant's credit: ;On,,the 14th appellant came l in answer Ao L appellee.'s message., Appellee.gave 'appellant his: check fox $898:9,3, in. payment for t ! the ,,lease,', which was the amount left: of .thP $1,090 , after; deductingL,appellant's acconnt with, the appellee at; the store: .Appellant Iagreed with the appellee that ; he wanted to sell it, and was.willing to take $25 per,aere for ,it., .On the 13th, of October, 1922, appellee, receNed a note from the appellantto , the effect , that ;Sutton, had, :offered him; $25 .per acre, r and, asking app,ellee,I if he had not alreadyoade, any, dispositioniof ;to sell it to Sutton for the same; price he had agreed with appellee to take !for it. There was nothing in.lthe,note appellee reeeived in regard t,o,a.drilling proposition: ,The note simply . said, that Sutton was 1ff-filing to ;pay $25 .per acre: When . appellee decided to .purchase , the leas'e, assigned:it to J E. Gaughan as trustee,. who, was to hold the title for the appellee, and. his associates: 'This was for convenience:because the lease :from appellant ,to;t1-,le
1140 TAYLOR V. GORDON. [169 'appellee was in appellee's name. After the transaction was completed, the appellee gave the appellant $125 for a half royalty in 20 acres, which was the amount the appellant asked and was a fair price. Witness sold the lease to Snowden and McSwinney six weeks after he purchased it from the appellant: In the meantime the Pat Karr well had come in, which made the lease more valuable than it was when appellee purchased it. sAt the time appellee purchased the lease he knew of no development or productiOn in that seCtion. * .T'he appellee testified that the reason appellant turried the Sale of the lease Over to him was that theappel-lant Was'gding to try' to handle it'Where he lived,' arid ap-pellee was going to try to 'handle it from where' appellee lived. Appellee made the suggestion • to appellant.. He wanted to help the . appellant . sell : the lease so appellant could pay what he owed the appellee. Appellee was handling the' lease , as best he 'could ' for the . appellant. Campbell was employed . bythe appellee in the appellee's store, and Ursery was appellee's brother-in-laW. WitnesS had.no Written 'contract with CamPbell Or'Ursery about their interest in the lease. He didn't know about thd 12th, .13th and 14th of October that there was a ConSiderable scraMble among lease buyers to get lands in the neighborhood tbe lands invOlved in this suit. On the 12th of OCtober appellant 'had told the aPpellee that if appellee could get $25 Per' aere in cash, and . not -bind the . land up in an escrow agreement, to sell it. Appellee simplY told appellant that; if he could find somebody to join withhim in'the purchase at that price, appellee would take it himself. Appellant said,.•"All right; that is what I want for it, arid if you can get the money let Me know." The pur-'pose in assigning the 'lease to Mr. Gaughan as trustee was for . convenience 'and to close the relation appellee had in it with the appellant, and for the protection' of the different interests. 'The reason 'appellee had the title to the lease put in his name Was to enable appellee to sell it 'quicker, and easier than to go out to appellant's house,
ARK.] TAYLOR V. GORDON. 1141 and get the lease signed from appellant and his wife. Witness stated that he didn't think that appellant asked him on the 13th of October. to whom the lease had .been sold other than himSelf. The.purchase money wai . paid to appellee by the parties interested with him in the purchase on the 13th of October, .1922,, and the assignment to Gaughan as, trustee was made on . the same day. Several witnesses testified on behalf of the appellee to the effect that $25 an acre was a fair price,.for , the lease in controversy at the.. time, same was ; sold to the appellee and his associates, and, that $125 for , .a .hralf royalty in 20 . acres was a fair , price for that royalty„at that time. . . - , One witness by the name of Lide • testified, for .the appellee that he was engaged in the oil and gas lease business and insurance business, and was familiar with the conditions in the Smackover field in October,. 1922. He considered $25 .an acre cash , for a lease . on appellant's land.a fair price at that time. Leases in that yicin-ityliad 'brought anywhere from thirty to tldrty-five dollars an acre, and further south ,brought .as high as $5'5 an acre. Witness thought that $25 was a fair value for the lease in. controversy. . A • ppellant and. another witness for him testified in rebuttal of some of the statements of the appellee... , . The trial court found generally in favor of the appelL lee and entered.a , decree dismissing' the appellant's complaint for want of equity, frOm which is this appeal.',... • The law applicable to. cases of this kind is-well stated by Mr. Justice FRATJENTHAL, speaking for this court, in the case of American Mortgage Company v. • Willieukts, 103 Ark. 484, at page 497, as follows : "The principle, we think, is well settled that a trustee or one who occupies a relation 6f confidence in the management or . sale of property can not deal with it in any . manner for his own benefit: This doctrine applies to the relatiOn of principal and agent- with reference to property which is th'e Subject" of the agency. It iS uniformly held that 'no one 'can be per-
1142 TAYLOR V. • GORDON. [169 mitted to purchase an interest Where he has a duty to perform that • is • inconsistent with , the character of a pill,- chaser.''. Where . an. agent Who is: intrusted- with, the sale Of 'property purchases , it . hiniself withont . 'disclosing; the fact that he is the purchaser to the , owner, 'the sale •will be canceled. in a-coUrt 6f 'equity at : the inStanCe :of well owner. Bog§en v. Robertson,. 70 'Ark: , :56. ; : Ththeatt Freeman, , 73 Ark. 576; BaracO f. Pine Bluff v. Levi; ,90' Ark. 166.. • Nit' such pUrchases: are not absolutely void ;, 'they are onlY l voidable. -If the , fran g aetionl iS • Made z in perfed fairness, and if diSelOsure' is .made to : the erWher • that the agent' is . the•-'purchaser, , land . with • 'such ., I knOWledge; the owner agrees to or ratifies such sale, then equity itl i not avoid arid 'cancel Sarhe'L . Under , snch .."Circurastances, the agent is:not.preehided frombuying property place& in his hands fOr • sale.!'. h In"the Oa's& Of • Thuie'att Frecind ‘ u,' supr4' ,: 'Cited by Judge , FRA-DENTHAL; ' speaking . Of the ; confidential transa'c-tion betWeen an attorney and client in WhiCh ' the attor, ney was , intrfisted 'With the' handling pf; dértai persbrial Property and real estate 'belonging to' his 'client, Whieh waS' afterwards aequir'ed bY the att6rhey, vfe . said: "But the burden of establishing; itS PerfeCt fairness; adeL quacy, and equity is thrown upon the attorney;-upOn the general s rille that be whb . bargains , in a , matter of advarr-tage with a person placing a confidence in, hithis bthind to show that 'a reasonable use . has been 'made of that , confi, deuce; a rule applying . equally to , all, persons standing in confidential :relations with .each other . :' (Story's Eq. Jur., § 311). While a: trustee or agent •for ,the sale of property is not absolutely inhibited from,the purchase of the property himself, yet in an action hy the cestui que trust or the , principal against the trustee or ;agent to set aside the transaction or to hold the trustee or agent. to an. accounting, the burden is upon the trustee or agent to show; that he acted in the utmost good , faith. That is, the trustee .or agent must show, he used no undue influence and took no advantage of, the confidential relation to bring
] TAYLOR • V. GORDON. 1143 about -a ,Sale to ; himserf of the' prOperty -with! which he was intrusted: He !Must ! show that he put ! the partY. to, whoth he stoOd confidential . reralloir ih:fthsSession of, 411 the acts -Within; his ! knowledge:, to enable 'ithe': party wile intruste'd det understandingly and • freely,' 'In other !. Words, the: . transaletion,. le 118e the , apt , language qUoted , by ;us in- Theatt v. Freem.an;' Sit,pVa; ;"Must ! be Urrimet : fideS!':;: -!And:. .the r bUrden is : •on ' the' !'trustee ,gg6 nt' -noctipyihg.: the :• Ponfidential rehition , ,te. ,shOw that.! the; ;•transaction Nvn§.. in f . the utmost : , good, faith ; othemise,• a'. courtof, equity ;will •set it ;aside. ,-,Numer,ons cases; of. this,court -are eitecIin:Americap; lWortgage. Øo. Williams • and ?Thw:eatt. v., .Treevicpv, ,s'apra, where; „the aboye doctrine is,announced, Therefore; there can/be no doubt , about the ; law applicable o the facts of this; ,record, It t is conceded hy the-app.ellee that. he was : the trustee: or agent of, the appellant. to; sell,the oil,- and ga ' s• lease which the ,appellee , and: his associates, ,•purchas•e , d... Tbey-OFP, the ,only. question.. of serious; character , in the ' . casei has been to determine under. the .evidence whether, or, npt ftlle appellee has met th,e. burden which the, law requires,of him to prove that •the ,transaction , !by which, he, and hs a$§9.7 eiate.!acqui.md the ancl gas lease . from„t4e , ayipellant was conducted and consummated ;in the ;utmost .go od 1 faith °mate appellee 's.part.;-.; , , . . • , 1 • • ; This iS ptirely a qtéstiOn of-fact, and We have 'set out the kbove'Salient 'featuires 'of ! the. testinniny .bearang;upon that issUe; and do 'not believeit would subserve • any' gedd piirpose to restate •51 .i argue them' at 'lngth ir :giving the reaSon's • f or the . Conclu'Sion thaves •readhed:r7 : SUffice it to Say, wear e cOnvinced that the- . finding Offthe Chancello'r is not clearly. again g t : the breponderanee tof the. ' evidence: The • teStiinony . on ' ibehalf of the , appellee tendS to .firot re-that i ' before the; purchaSe !was 'bonsummated* him .fort himself 'and his assoCiateS,' he let the apiPellant knevo that he himself would pUrdhase;the land; and give! ainiellant $25. 'an acre for the ! Same' if 'he could get 'SOme one to go iti with: him. A' prepoilderanCel.of the evidencefshow's lhat
1144 TAYLOR V. GORDON. [1169 $25 an acre was a 'fair price , for the lease at that time, and that appellee was mot cognizant. of any facts at the time the sale was Made that would justify him in believing that the lease was, of greater value or that appellant could obtain more for it. ; The testimony of A. M: Sutton, who was a witness for both the appellant and the appellee, Was td the effect that the average value of leases in the vicinity of.appellant's land at that time was $25 ; that witness had offered. appellant that ;price for 'his 'land, and that the price was satisfactory to apPellant, and appellant' signed an' order to the appellee to that effect. Another witness, by the name Of Lide, testified that $25 an acre cash wias a. fair price for the lease at that time.' . 'At that time the Pat Marr well had : not come' in'. After it came in the price of leaSes in that vicinity' 'advanced very rapidly. The testimonY. of appellant himself tends to prove that at the time the sale was made to. the apPellee he considered $25' an acre a fair Priee for his land, but he thought at that tinie that the appellee had reallY sold the . leaSe and received a greater price for it,' 'and was not 'paying the. appellant the priee he had received. This iS indicated by tile testimony of appellant when he 'says that •the trade would have been all right if the appellee had given appellant what was eoming'to' him ; that appellantthought at the time the appellee settled with him that the 4130.2 lee had received more money for the lease thanhe was giving appellant. Notwithstanding appellant so thought, he did. not so inforra the appellee, and express any dissatisfaction With the settlement. Indeed, the testimony of the appellant tends strongly to show that his dissatisfaction with, the settlement was brought about after he discovered from the abstract that the appellee had .sold the lease for $6,000, and had only accountedto appellant for $1,000 or at the rate of'$25 an acre. But, as before stated, a preponderance of the evidence shows that $25 an acre at the time the sale was consummated was a' fair price. Of course, the duties and obligations of the appellee to the appellant must be judged by the situation of the parties and their
relation to each other at thatAime, , and not by the Subsequent events unknown to both which caused the . price of . leases ,: in that vicinity to .sodu skyward in 'so short a time. • After a. carefUl, consideration of all the testimony.in the record; we dannot say .thatthe general findings 'of law 'an& fact by the chancellbr ii . favor of the appellee rare erroneous. -The : decree is thereforelaffirmed.. ' ; v . , .1- •. •
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.