Case Name: Hunter v. Goudy and others
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1824-12
Citations: 1 Ohio 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Hunter v. Goudy and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 1
Pages: 449–457

Head Matter:
*Hunter v. Goudy and others.
Relief in Equity.
Contracts made in good faith can not be rescinded in equity where both parties were mistaken as to value.
This case came up from Greene county. The object of the bill was to obtain relief against a judgment at law on certain sealed notes made in 1816.
The bill charged that on the 2d of May, 1816, J. Hunter agreed to purchase of Ekellis Willhite five lots in the town of Pittsburg, in the then territory of Indiana. That Willhite represented that he, with David Hillis and John Minor, were proprietors of the town, which was represented to be in a flourishing condition, and likely to become a seat of justice. That for the purchase money, he gave five notes payable in September following, for $355; three made payable to Ekellis Willhite, and two to his son, John H, Willhite. At the sanie time he received Ekellis Willhite five title bonds in the following terms:
“We, Ekellis Willhite, John Minor, and David Hillis, obligate ourselves and our heirs, to deed to John Hunter one in-lot in the town of Pittsburg', Indiana Territory, as known on the plan of said town, as of record, by the No. 47, for lot aforesaid; for the performance of which obligation we jointly and severally bind ourselves under the penal sum of $2,000, current money of the United States. Given under our hands and seals, this 2d day of May, 1816.
“Ekellis Willhite, [Seal.]
John Minor, [Seal.]
David Hillis, [Seal.]”
This contract was executed for all the parties by Willhite, who represented that he was authorized to do so by Minor and Hillis.
The bill further charges that Willhite’s representations in relation to the town were false. That he had no power from Minor and Hillis to sell or to, bind them in a bond; that the land on which the town was laid out was not secured, being only entered and one payment made to the government; that Thomas Hunter was not an original party to the contract, but executed the notes as security, after they became due, without any consideration; that after the notes became due they were assigned for a trifling consideration, and came to the hands of the Goudys by assignment, *dated in February,11818, by whom judgment had been obtained against Thomas Goudy alone for the full amount of the notes. The bill prays an injunction and a rescission of the contract.
The answers admit the contracts, assignments, and judgment, as stated in the bill; but they deny the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Willhite asserts that Minor and Hillis were equally interested with him, and that he had power from them to sell and execute bonds; that they had a title to the lands which had not been forfeited, but was now secure; that John Hunter saw the town before he purchased, and that no misrepresentations were made.
The testimony on the part of the complainants proves that the town of Pittsburg is entirely abandoned as a town; that Willhite has inclosed the whole site as a farm, and has it under cultivation. It is also proved that Willhite had made but -one payment on the land in 1816. But that the whole was paid before the time of hearing this cause, and Willhite entitled to a final certificate.
On the part of the defendants, it was proved that Minor and Hillis were understood to be part proprietors of the town, and one witness testifies that he understood from them that they had authorized Willhite to sell lots. It was also proved that Minor and Hillis were men in good circumstances, sufficient to be responsible for the title to the land. And it was in proof that Hunter expressed himself well pleased with the bargain.
A deed for the lots from Willhite, Minor, and Hillis, duly executed and acknowledged, dated 12th March, 1823, was made an exhibit in the case.
Collet, for complainant; Alexander, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The misrepresentation charged in the bill is not made out in proof, although it is plain that the complainants have made a hard and losing bargin. The lots appear to have been purchased upon speculation under the impression that a town would grow up and property be valuable. The purchaser was on the ground and could judge for himself. He seems to have had the same opportunity to form a correct opinion that was possessed by the other party. A court *of equity never interferes to relieve against a contract, made in good faith, where both parties are mistaken as to the value. Had any circumstance given a great and sudden rise to lots in this town, the proprietors could not have asked equity to give them a new bargain against Hunter by increasing the price he was to pay. It was an equal risk, and equity can not interpose.
By procuring Thomas Hunter to execute the notes as security after they became due, John Hunter then affirmed the contract, and acknowledged its continued obligation, although not performed by the other party making a conveyance. To make the state of the title a ground for rescinding the contract, the purchasers should have tendered payment of the purchase money and demanded a title ; or if the tender was not necessary in this case, he should have claimed his deed, or have taken some.steps avowing an intention to give up the bargain.' He has not shown that he was ignorant of the state of the title when he purchased, and we are not to presume it.