Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-04-11
Decision OF the Supreme Court.

JUDGEs-SAM MILLIGAN, JAMES G. SHACKELFoRD,
AND ALVIN HAWKINS.
THOMAS q. CALDWELL, Attorney General and Re
porter.
THOMAS K. HARRIS Us. BENJAMIN 4.
SMITH, 6iI-and BENJAMIN SMITH u.s.
THOMAS K. HARRIS cross bill.
This is bill in the nature of bill to enforce the
specific performance of q contract. The complain
ants sold to the defendant in the original bill a
mill, one acre of land, and yoke of work cattle,
for which the latter agreed to pay him $780, and all
the debts he might owe in jackson county. Three
hundred and odd dollars we're paid in a settlement
between the parties at the date of the contract No
note other obligation given to the re-
mainder and this bill is brought TO enforce pay
ment.
The defendant in the original bill files his answer
in the nature of bill, in which he denies the
equities set up and relied on in the bill. And in ad-
dition thereto he charges that the contract was a
gross fraud and misrepresentation that the ma
chinery worthless the contract price exorbitant
and that the complainant had failed to keep and
perform his part of the agreement. Harris, the de-
fendant in the cross BILL answers and specifically de-
MES these allegations.
The proof is voluminous, and much of it wholly
inapplicable to the real question in controversy
But enough appears to convince the mind that Har-
rs, by well devised scheme Of studied artifce and
misrepresentation, perpetrated gross fraud upon
Smith. He is mechanic, and the builder of the saw
mill, and the law holds him such to q strict
countability for his representations, whether made
in ignorance or with knowledge of the real condi-
ton Of the machinery about which he speaks. He
repeatedly represented that the mill would cut from
eight hundred to one thousand feet of lumber in
day.
The proof shows that it could not be made to cut
one-half of that amounts and that it was so inarti
icialy constructed that it would cost more than
could be realized from it to keep it in repair In
fact it appears to have been, piece of machinery,
totally worthless. Many of the witnesses say they
would keep it in repair for it and others that
it was worth but little more than the irons upon it.
Harris it appears in the record said he built it to
SELL and failing in direct transaction to dispose of
it to Smith. who seems to have been his marked
victim, he combined and confederated with one
Reed, his accompce in the fraud, and personal en-
envy to Smith, to whom after formal examina-
ton, of the property, he made sham transfer Of
the mill for the sum for which he afterwards
sold it to Smith. The mill stood within hun
dred and fifty or two hundred yards of Smiths
house. and the fact that his personal enemy was TO
obtain lodgment at his own door, doubtless, fur
nished another and strong inducement to Smith
to complete the purchase. The " sham contract
between Harris and Reed was Cancelled, and Smith,
on the same terms, closed the agreement.
The whole facts of the case, although artfully in
tervoven, leave no doubt resting on the mind that
from beginning to end it the purpose of Harris,
by artifce and misrepresentation, to invege Smith
into the transaction. Fraud, it is true must be
proven it cannot be presumed But as this court
has said, in the case of Floyd VS.. Goodwin, Yer-
484 4S9 it may be gathered more from the circum-
stances attending the transaction than upon tangi-
BILE proof And when made fully to appear, it vi
brates all contracts into which it enters and equity
will not only interfere in such to set aside acts
DONE but viii also if by fraud acts have been pre-
vented from being DONE interfere and treat the
exactly If the had bpen done Ralchpr
Belcher, 10 Yer, III.
Affirm the Chancellor's decree.
MILLIGAN, Judge.
Attest: j. G. FRAZER, Clerk.