Aycock v. Carr

PLUMMER, J.

The plaintiffs had judgment in an action to cancel and set aside a certain deed of conveyance whereby a tract of land described in the complaint, valued at $14,000, was conveyed to the defendants, Edward A. Carr and Louisa F. Carr, in consideration of the assignment by said defendants to the plaintiffs of certain state rights under a pending application for patent. The lands described in the complaint were, by the defendants Carr, conveyed to the defendant Laura E. Rice, the defendant Laura E. Rice not having paid any consideration and having knowledge of the transactions involved in this action. Subsequent to the conveyance of the premises referred to a mortgage in the sum of $3,500 was given by the defendants upon the conveyed lands to an innocent party. Judgment went for the rescission and cancellation of the deed of conveyance, and also for judgment in the sum of $3,500, against the defendants Edward A. Carr and pouisa F. Carr, the sum realized by' them on the mortgage executed as above stated. From this judgment the defendants appeal.

The record shows that this action is based upon an alleged scheme to defraud the plaintiffs and to induce them to part with valuable property, by representations regarding state rights to manufacture and vend a pencil-vending machine, for which the appellants Carr had filed an application for patent. A setting forth of a few of the findings of the trial court sufficiently discloses the facts of this case. Among other things the court found as follows:

“That it is true that said defendants, Edward A. Carr and Louisa F. Carr, on or about said 12th day of May, 1925, with intent to deceive and defraud the plaintiffs, and to induce them to purchase the rights of said defendants Carr in and to the said contracts hereinabove mentioned, and to accept an assignment thereof, and to make, execute and deliver the indenture and conveyance hereinafter mentioned falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiffs that the pencil-vending machine above referred to was the only

[677]

pencil-vending machine in use in the United States; that said Parker, hereinabove mentioned, had the exclusive right to the use of the idea and principle embodied therein; that the use thereof and of any pencil-vending machine by any person other than said Parker, during the pendency of the proceedings for the perfection of the patent thereof, or thereafter, could and would be enjoined by said Parker through legal proceedings; that there was no other pencil-vending machine on the market, in commercial competition with said vending machine, and that there was no other pencil-vending machine being used, sold, operated or patented anywhere in the United States.”