Court Opinion

ID: 9826645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:21:18.667466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:12.084170
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOE. REHEARING.
The petition for a rehearing filed herein is to all intents and purposes a reargument of the points heretofore very carefully considered hy us. Some new authorities from jurisdictions outside of Tennessee are cited which are contrary to the decisions of this State as set forth in our original opinion. We very definitely disagree with these citations and feel that our courts have heretofore decided the questions correctly from both an equitable and legal standpoint.
It is now inferentially argued that we held that Acuff was not bound hy the statements of Harmon and Associates. We had no intention of so holding. The matter was not argued before. We think it a well recognized principle in this State that the statements of one’s agents as to acreage are binding on the principal. The findings of fact and statements hy us on this matter were made to show that Acuff personally was guilty of no fraud in the matter. These - findings are necessarily drawn from the proof in this record and our statement therein was necessary in view of the finding of the Chancellor that: “Acuff knowingly and wilfully defrauded the complainant by false representations as to the number of acres of land contained in said tract. ’ ’
On a re-examination and study of the record we think we erroneously made the statement in our finding of *464fact: “Through oversight the Chancellor miscalculated the acreage shortage. He failed to include the two small tracts of 2.9 acres. This makes the shortage of the whole 28.5 acres or a fraction over 20 percent.”
One reading this record naturally finds and concludes as we did above because all reference in questions and proof is to the 112.2 acre tract without reference to the two small tracts but on a careful scrutiny of the plat as prepared by Mr. Lack it is seen that these two small tracts are included in his total survey. The shortage is therefore 31.4 acres as found below instead of 28.fi.
This slight difference in acreage can not and does not change our conclusions as heretofore set forth in our original opinion.
For reasons sufficient to him, Judge McAmis took no part in this petition to rehear.
The petition must be denied.