Americus times-recorder., 1920-06-01
COURT DECIDES
MILLION DOLLAR
BAUXITE CASE
Claims of Mrs. Davis and
Mrs. Griffin Elirn-
mated

OoPleS VI Ine ueclSlOn OF the Su-
premc Court in the Sumter county
r Million Dollar Reauxite Case haze
been received by attorneys interest
ed IN the proceedings. Tke decision
OF the high court both affirms and
reverses the lower court, and the case
Is sent back for a hearing on its
merits on those allegations sustained
oy the high tribunal. The case orig
mated IN Sumter Superior Court, be-
ing brought by Hixon & Pace, repre-
sentlng the plaintiffs and Eldridge
Quits, of Fitzgerald, who is associat-
ed with them in the case. W. W.
Dykes and Dan Chappell, of Ameri-
Gus, and Hal Lawson, of Abbeville,
represent the defendants The plain
tlfts named in the original bill of
complaint are ]. L. Johnson, Judson
Johnson, A. J. Johnson, Amos John.
son, Mrs. Annie Davis (born Brooks) =.
Mrs. Mamie Griffin (born Brooks)
and Thomas L. Thigpen, and the de-
fendants are Richard D. Hatton and
the Republic Mining and Manufac-
turing Company, of st. Louis, Mo
The effect of the decision of the Su-
preme Court on the demurrer filed
by the defendants is to eliminate Mrs
pants in the litigation, and the case
now comes back for trial upon its
merits as to allegations set up by,
other plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court holds in it's de-
clsion that Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Crif-
fin having first sold the property
while minor children and afterword
executing to Mrs. Ella R. Holt a deed
fn inf
ing of age, and for the purpose of
\ Watts, their guardian, they thereby
in the land. Hatton, the court holds
practiced no fraud upon the two
plaintiffs named when he secured /
their signatures to a deed, such deed
expressly reciting that it was solely
for the purpose of correcting a pre-
vious error.
No Ground for Receiver.
1t not being shown that the de-
PENDANTS, the Republic Mining Com
pany, and R. D. Hatton, were insolv-
ent and unable to respond in damages
in any amount likely to be recover
ed as a result of the litigation, the
high court holds that there exists no
ground for the appointment of a re-
ceiver, which portion of the bill of
complaint is dismissed. Certain in
junctive relief prayed for is also de-
MED the plaintiffs, it being held by
the court that all of the rights of the
plaintiffs would be protected against
any transfer of the property by Hat
ton under the doctrine of lis pen
dens.
The decision, written by Justice
Beck and concurred in bv all of the
justices of the court, recites that
'the failure of Hatton to communi-
cate to these grantors Mrs. Davis
and Mrs. Grifin) the value of the
bauxite ore, the quantity of this ore
upon the land, and its location in the
various parts of the lot, did not
amount to fraud There was no con-
fdential relation existing between
these two venders 1t is not alleg-
ed that he made any statement in
regard to the value of the property
that misled them" The decision
here cites numerous decisions up .
holding the position of the court,
making the transcript quite volumin-
Gus.
The decision further recites that
Hatton's statement that he desired
to have these two parties plaintiff
execute to him a deed which would
correct a former mistake in a former
deed did not show fraud. The for
mer deed might in one sense of the
word, the decision says, be reg arded
as containing a mistake, IL that it
did not convey the exact interest of
the parties executing the convey
ance, though there were no inaccura-
cies as to the description of the land
by metes and bounds. If Mrs. Davis
and Mrs. Griffin did not read the
deed, they offer no excuse for that,
the court holds. 1t is not alleged
that they could not read and to de-
clare this deed void on such allega-
i, tions of fraud would be to endanger
Va large percentage of executed con-
= tracts by which title has been di-
vested and vested in this state. I'm
der the allegations of this petition
Hatton had an incontestable right .
and title to the lot of land IN ques-
ton.
Equity Proceedings Proper.
"a consideration of the complicat-
ed facts in this case leads to the CON
clusion that this is one Of the cases
where there exist the Pc 'uliar cir
cumstances rendering the proceed .
ings in equity more suitable, just
and complete" the DECISION says
than it would be to allow the case
to be heard in a court other than one
of equity.
AS to the allegation of the plain
tiffs that Hatton has procured CON
veyances from "somc Of the heirs
of the late Joshua NJ Thigpen, pur-
Continued on page A.