71 S.E.2d 181 (Va. 1952)
The undisputed evidence showed that shortly after the buyer acquired this tract of land from his sister, he cut and marketed therefrom timber valued at approximately 10 times what he had paid for the property. The trial court denied recission because seller failed to prove actual fraud.
- On appeal, the court reversed and held that a mere statement of the matter showed the gross and shocking inadequacy of the price paid.
- Neither of the parties knew of the timber on the land and buyer admitted that he would not have bought the property from seller for the small amount paid if he had then known of the true situation.
- The court held that the inadequacy of consideration here, together with the confidential relation of the parties, the pecuniary distress of the seller, and the mutual mistake of the parties as to the subject matter of the contract, entitled seller to relief in equity.
- The court also found that the bill alleged the constituent elements of constructive fraud, so it was not necessary to amend it.
- The court remanded the matter to restore the status quo in so far as practicable.
The decree appealed from was reversed and the cause was remanded for further proceedings in conformity with the views here expressed.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.