Taliaferro v. Emery
124 Va. 674 · Supreme Court of Virginia · 1919
Facts
C. H. Emery and C. D. Taliaferro entered a contract on May 17, 1917, to exchange properties: Emery's 92 acres for Taliaferro's 5 acres and two Quantico lots. Negotiations occurred at Emery's home after Taliaferro rode five miles to get there. Taliaferro claimed they initially disagreed on terms, specifically his demand for an additional $1,000 payment. He alleged that Emery then plied him with whiskey until he became intoxicated and unconscious, at which point Emery procured his signature on the contract. Taliaferro also noted alleged defects in Emery's property title and a $300 lien. Subsequently, Taliaferro and his wife conveyed the two Quantico lots to G. W. Wallace. Mrs. Taliaferro later refused to execute a deed for the 92 acres, claiming Emery got her husband drunk and omitted the $1,000 clause. A letter from Emery's counsel later referenced "payment of the money," supporting Taliaferro's claim.
Procedural history
Appellee C. H. Emery brought suit to enforce specific performance of a contract and to set aside a deed. The cause was referred to a master commissioner, whose findings were adverse to Taliaferro. The circuit court overruled exceptions, confirmed the commissioner's report, set aside the deed to Wallace, and decreed specific performance. This court is reviewing and reversing the circuit court's decree.
Issue
Is a contract for property exchange enforceable through specific performance when one party alleges that the other induced his intoxication to procure his signature, and a material term (a $1,000 payment) was omitted from the written agreement?
Holding
The court reversed the lower court's decree, finding the contract voidable due to imposition and unfairness, and dismissed the bill for specific performance.
Rule
A contract is invalidated or rendered voidable if the drunkenness of one party was brought about by the opposite party, a fraudulent advantage was taken of it, or it deprived the party of his reason and an agreeing mind. When drunkenness is induced by the party obtaining the contract, it is a flagrant badge of fraud, rendering the contract voidable at law and in equity. Similarly, taking fraudulent advantage of drunkenness constitutes direct fraud, making the transaction voidable in all courts. The court found Emery plied Taliaferro with whiskey, took advantage of his intoxication, and the evidence suggested a material term was omitted, demonstrating imposition and unfairness.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.