Case Name: Stafford v. White
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1849-07
Citations: 6 Gratt. 93
Docket Number: 
Parties: Stafford v. White.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 93–96

Head Matter:
Lewisburg.
Stafford v. White.
1849. July Term.
(Absent Cabell, P. and Brooke, J.)
A purchaser of land for an aggregate sum, without reference to any specific quantity, having gotten all the land for which the parties supposed they were contracting, is not entitled to any abatement from the purchase money, because the conveyance to him, and the patents under which he derives title, embrace other land, held by a third person under a better title.
This was a bill by David White, to enjoin ¡a judgment at law for 94 dollars, with interest, recovered against him by James Stafford, on the ground that the bond on which the judgment was recovered was given for a part of the purchase money of a tract of land; and that a part of the land purchased was held by a certain John B. Mitchell, under an older and better title. It appears that William Moore of North Carolina claimed to own three small tracts of land in the county of Carroll, adjoining each other, one containing seventy, one fifty-eight, and the other one hundred acres. When these tracts came to be surveyed, it was ascertained that two of them laid on the northeast of Cranberry creek, and ^e greater part of the other on the southwest of the creek; hut when the purchases hereinafter mentioned were made it was not supposed that Moore owned any ]an¿ southwest of the creek. In fact the whole of the tract of seventy acres which was on the southwest of the creek, was held and occupied by John B. Mitchell, under another and older title; and his land was bounded by Cranberry creek.
In 1835 or ’36 John B. Mitchell, acting for himself and James Stafford, purchased Moore’s lands; and at that time neither of them knew or supposed that any part of them laid southwest of Cranberry creek. They agreed upon a division line between them, by which the land lying along the creek on the northeast side thereof, was allotted to Mitchell; and this land thus allotted to Mitchell separated the lands of Moore, which laid on the northeast of the creek, from the creek, except for a very short space.
After Mitchell and Stafford had fixed their division line, and before Moore’s conveyance to them had been fully executed, though it had been prepared, Stafford sold to the plaintiff White his portion of the land bought of Moore, for the price of 300 dollars, reserving a small portion; and then it was agreed between Stafford, Mitchell and White, that Moore should execute to White a deed for the whole of the land, and White should convey to Mitchell his part of it, and to Stafford the small piece reserved by him. Moore accordingly conveyed to White, and White conveyed to Mitchell.
At the time White purchased of Stafford, it does not appear to have been known that any part of Moore’s land laid southwest of the creek, but it being ascertained that the deed from Moore to him embraced land there, which was in the possession of Mitchell, who held under a better title than Moore’s, White claimed that this land was embraced in his purchase from Stafford, and that he was therefore entitled to an abatement from the purchase money.
When the cause came on to be heard, the Court below perpetuated the injunction; and thereupon, Stafford applied to this Court for an appeal, which was allowed.
John T. Anderson, for the appellant.
Floyd, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Allen, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court is of opinion, that it fully appears the parties at the time of the contract for the sale and purchase of the land in the proceedings mentioned, supposed that the lands were bounded on the southwest by Cranberry creek, and did not know that the lines called for in Moore's grants included any land on the southwest of said creek; the same being then, in the possession of John B. Mitchell, who held under what is admitted by the parties to be an older and better title. It furthermore appears, that at the time of the contract certain portions of the laud on the northeast side of said creek were reserved by the appellant out of the sale, for the benefit of himself and said John B. Mitchell, which reservations were made by metes and bounds, but the quantity thereof was not ascertained. And for the residue of the Moore tracts, so supposed by the parties to be situate on the northeast side of the creek, the appellee agreed to pay an aggregate sum, without reference to any specific quantity. The appellee has therefore in fact obtained the land for which the parties supposed they were contracting, and for which he agreed to pay the stipulated price, and although in running the lines, it turns out that the boundaries called for in the Moore grants, extend across Cranberry creek, and include land on the southwest side thereof, held by Mitchell under a better title, this fact does not entitle the ap pellee to any deduction from the purchase money. The Court is therefore of opinion that the decree perpetuating the injunction is erroneous, and the same is reversed with costs to the appellant. And this Court proceeding, &c., dissolves the injunction and dismisses the bill with costs.