Putnam's Handy Law Book for the Layman

by Albert Sidney Bolles

Sometimes the courts, instead of going so far, will enjoin them from doing wrongs that are feared. Suppose it is feared that directors will declare a dividend that has not been earned, the courts on proper proof would enjoin them from making it. Suppose it is feared they will issue more stock and divide all the shares among themselves instead of proportionately among all the stockholders as the law requires, in order to get control of the company, a court would not hesitate to restrain them.

Lastly may be considered a stockholder's rights to inspect the books of his company. This he may do at all proper times and for reasonable purposes. And if the right is refused the courts will aid him in making an inspection. What then is a proper purpose that justifies him in making the request? He cannot do so to satisfy some freak, or to annoy an official with whom he may be on bad terms. Nor can he do it to obtain information to be used for stock-jobbing purposes. Suppose he has reason for supposing that the books were falsified, that the stockholders were not receiving correct accounts of the expenditures and earnings of the company, a stockholder would certainly have a right to make an examination, and could also employ an agent, attorney, or expert accountant to do this for him, for his ignorance of bookkeeping methods might debar him from making an efficient examination were the right confined exclusively to himself.

Curtesy.—A husband acquires an interest or estate in land belonging to his wife after her death. To be entitled to it, there must be a legal marriage. Even though it be unlawful, if not set aside during her life, his interest in her estate cannot be defeated by afterwards declaring the marriage void. Curtesy does not extend to land nominally held by her, or as trustee. The wife must have had a child who might have inherited the estate. It is immaterial whether she acquired her estate before or after the birth of the child. As soon therefore as a child is born, his estate or interest begins and is perfected or consummated by her death, and may be taken at any time afterward for his debts. What may be the effect of a divorce is not well settled. In some states even though he is an innocent party, he forfeits his estate. This rule is founded on the idea that he is a voluntary party, and therefore need not have one; in other states his interest continues. As the husband's rights to such an estate have been abolished in many states, we refrain from adding more principles.

Deceit.—A seller is not liable for deceit when the knowledge, or way of obtaining it, is equally known by both parties. If one goes into a store to buy a bushel of apples that he has seen by the door and inquires the price and pays for them without making any inquiry concerning their quality, he cannot recover his money if half of them prove to be rotten unless the seller intentionally deceived him, for he might have inquired whether they were all like those on top and of good quality. But if the merchant should put fine ones on top in order to deceive a purchaser, he could recover for his loss. This rule has a wide application. Suppose a seller keeps his store dimly lighted intentionally so that the inferior quality of his goods cannot be discerned, and a person should thereby be deceived and injured, he would have a good cause of action against the seller. Suppose a ship was decayed in places, and these were intentionally so concealed that they could not easily be seen by one who was examining with the intention of purchasing, and he was thereby misled, the seller would be liable for the loss to the purchaser. Of course, the prudent course is to obtain a warranty, or better still, whenever practicable, buy of one who has established a reputation for honest, fair dealing.

Suppose a man purchases a piece of land, generally supposed to be an ordinary farm, which contains, as he knows, a valuable coal mine, can the seller after the public knowledge of the mine, recover the land or a larger purchase price therefor? Has the purchaser deceived him? Did the law require the purchaser to make known his superior knowledge before purchasing? No, if it did, there would be no end to the confusion to which such a rule would lead. It is within ordinary experience that purchasers buy either knowing or supposing they will reap advantages from their contracts of which the seller is ignorant. There is no deception in this; but there is in withholding knowledge from the buyer of the quality or condition of a thing that affects its value, and which if known by him would probably prevent him from purchasing. Suppose a horse is blind in one eye and the prudent horse trader says nothing. Can the buyer recover? Ordinarily he could not, for he ought to have looked, and if he did not know enough to look, either he should have obtained a warranty, or have employed a competent agent to purchase for him. Suppose the old trader, skilled in his business, intentionally put his horse in the shadow so that the defective eye could not be seen, then the seller would surely have his remedy against him. If he put his horse there accidentally he would not.

Is a wink a deception for which the winker must answer in the law? A hardened dealer once went near a large meeting of men with a wagon load of bottles containing cold tea. The thirsty crowd soon came around. "One dollar a piece," he announced with a wink. The wink was effective and the bottles were quickly sold. They were filled with cold tea, and the buyers sued for the deceit that had been practiced on them. They failed, the court said that a wink was not enough. Another court might have decided otherwise.

Deeds.—In selling and buying land several deeds are in use. The forms differ considerably in the different states. The most important of them is called a warranty deed, in which the seller not only conveys the title, but warrants or agrees to defend it against all attacks. Suppose A sells a piece of land by warranty deed to B, who makes the unwelcome discovery that a mortgage is existing thereon. He notifies A and asks him to clear the title. Suppose the mortgage has been paid, but the lender of the money, the mortgagee, forgot to give the proper deed to show that he had received payment. And suppose he was an ugly fellow who would not give the proper release. B could compel him to do so, and the expense must be borne by A because his deed of warranty required him to give a clear title.

In such a deed the grantor or seller agrees or covenants to do usually four or more specific things: first, he asserts that he has a right to convey the land at the time of the sale. Of course, if he has not, the agreement or covenant is at once broken and the buyer can proceed against him to make the title good, or to recover damages if he cannot retain the premises. The second covenant or agreement is to the effect that the seller has both the quantity and quality of land mentioned in the deed. The third covenant is that there are no encumbrances on the land, that is, no mortgages, no rights of others to pass over it, or to take earth, water or other things from the land. The fourth covenant is for the quiet enjoyment of the land, which is the most general form of warranty. There may be other covenants, often there are, while the four mentioned may be, and often are, modified.

Does such a warranty bind other persons than the warrantor, in other words are his heirs and persons to whom he may devise his lands also indefinitely bound by his warranty? The statutes in some states fix his liability. Where none exist the law limits the liability of parties to the amount of assets or property they have received from the warrantor; if they have received nothing they are not liable for anything.

A covenant to protect the buyer from encumbrances, claims, etc., does not always relieve him from the expense of a lawsuit. Suppose A claims a right of way over B's land and insists on using it. B brings his action of trespass against him and wins. He cannot sue his grantor or seller to recover the expense of the suit, for the latter would reply, "You have won your case which is proof that the title is good as warranted, and therefore you have no claim against me." If, on the other hand, A had won his case B would then have a good cause of action against his covenantor.