Morgan County Democrat. (McConnelsville, Ohio) 1886-1943, 1934-07-19
Henry c. Combs, ct al, Win Case
Judge Thomas Decision

I ill with bowel trouble.
Henry c. Combs, ct al, Win Case
Judge Thomas Decision
Recently Judge D. HI. Thomas
| heard the case of Henry C. Combs
ct al VS. Chas. Bertram ct al, action
| for cancellation of lease. Judge
| Thomas has rendered his decision,
and because of the nature of the
case and wide interest therein, we
publish Judge Thomas decision in
| full as follows:
/ while the deed to the real es-
tate involved was made to William
Bertram. according to the evidence
of Charles Bertram the title in fact
| always has, and does now belonged
| to him. The plaintiffs received on
the purchase price $500, and no
more, and there remains due and
| owing the sum of $4,000 as the bal
ance of the purchase price of the
farm of about 1877 acres. The de-
fendant was young and alert man
dealing with an aged and feeble
man. Mr.. Combs is very nervous
and tottering now, and his sigma
ture at the time of the transaction
In question is about as shaky as at
present. The defendant manipulate
ed the deal so that he was freed of
all responsibility, and the plaintiffs
were left with note against one
u arly !, ioh
nothing at all. True, it was pre-
tended to be secured by a second
| mortgage on real estate in Marietta.
but this added no value to the
worthless note.
I am of the belief that the de-
fendant intended to, and did, lead
the plaintiffs to believe that he was
responsible to them for the balance
OF the purchase price of the farm
Otherwise, why tell them that he
regularly carried $4,000 deposited
in the bank and would pay the bal
ance on the farm if the sellers
would throw off the interest? But
an important feature of the case is
that the deal was made at Reiners-
vile and plaintiffs knew nothing AFT
all about the real estate values in
Marietta. They were told that the
$1,000 would be secured by a lien
on the property worth $4,000: and
L think the evidence justifes the
conclusion that their claim was to
be the first lien. They had right
to rely upon this representation and
did rely upon it absolutely. They
mad no other means of information.
Under the circumstances the de-
fendant was bound to deal in ut
most good faith. True. the plain
tlffs were once taken to Marietta
and driven past the house which
was to secure the claim That they
were relying upon the representa-
tions of the defendants rather than
their own judgment is evidenced by
the fact that they did not get out
of the automobile. If they under
stood that Frank Clark was to be-
come their paymaster they did moth
ing to learn of his responsibility
plaintiffs learned before signing the
deed that there was prior mort
gage of $4,000 upon the property
they were receiving as security. If
SO, according to the defendants rep
reservations, they had $4,000 |
equity securing their claim of $2,-
500, while, in fact, they had no
equity and the defendant knew it.
The Marietta property was soon ap-
praised for $2,400, in connection
with the judicial sale, and sold to
the mortgage for less than $4,000. |
Under all the circumstances / am of
the opinion that in inducing the |
plaintiffs to accept the pretended |
security for the deferred payment |
contained every element of fraud,
and was a fraud perpetrated upon |
the plaintiffs and that this feature |
of the transaction should be cam
celled upon the return of the note, |
which has been done by the filing of |
defendants use. The defendant |
claims that through the laches or |
the plaintiffs he has been led to |
spend a considerable sum of money |
on the farm and could not now be |
placed in status quo. However, he |
still owes $2,500 on the farm which |
he should pay. Sec. S543-1 General |
Code provides for a vendors lien |
under conditions prevailing in this |
case. 1t is, therefore, the order of |
the court that vendors lien in the |
sum of $4,000, with interest, be inn
pressed upon said farm, subject to |
foreclosure in the usual manner if |
the said sum is not paid to plain
tiffs within ten days from the entry |
herein.
Decree for plaintiffs; defendant
to pay COSTS"