## Facts

- Flora held a North Carolina grant to roughly 274 acres in what became Tennessee and did not know the land’s location.
- Flora asked White whether White knew where the land was; White said he did not.
- Flora and White signed a written agreement: White would locate the land and examine title; Flora would convey one-half to White and sell the other half to White at a price set by a mutually acceptable appraiser, payable in horses.
- A third party informed White of the land’s location; soon after, White and Flora visited the tract and verbally agreed to have Bradley appraise the half White would buy.
- The land was near White’s home, making location and title investigation relatively easy; Flora later complained the bargain was unfair.
- Flora conveyed the entire tract to Cherry despite the agreement with White.
- Cherry knew of White’s agreement and took a bond of indemnity from Flora against White’s claim.
- White provided Flora a horse, bridle, and saddle valued at $100 to be credited toward the purchase price for the half White would buy.

## Issues

1. Whether White’s alleged nondisclosure or statement that he did not know the land’s location constituted fraud sufficient to defeat enforcement of the contract.
2. Whether the apparent inadequacy of consideration (given how easily White performed) justified rescission or denial of equitable relief.
3. Whether Cherry, as a subsequent purchaser with notice, took the land free of White’s equitable rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted equitable relief enforcing White’s contractual rights against Flora and Cherry.
- The court found insufficient proof that White committed fraud or made a provable misrepresentation about the land’s location.
- The court rejected inadequacy of consideration, standing alone, as a ground to set aside or refuse to enforce the bargain.
- The court held Cherry was bound because he purchased with notice of White’s prior agreement and thus took subject to White’s equity.

## Legal Principles

- Superior knowledge about a property’s location or value does not, by itself, make a bargain fraudulent; equitable relief for fraud requires proof of affirmative misrepresentation or equivalent wrongful conduct.
- Inadequacy of consideration alone is not a sufficient basis for a court of equity to rescind or refuse specific performance of an arm’s-length agreement by competent parties.
- A purchaser who takes title with notice of a prior equitable claim is not protected as a bona fide purchaser without notice and takes subject to the prior equity, even if the purchaser obtained indemnity from the grantor.

## Conclusion

The court enforced White’s land agreement, holding that unproven allegations of nondisclosure and a later-claimed bad bargain did not defeat equitable enforcement, and that a subsequent purchaser with notice remained subject to White’s prior equitable rights.


White v. Flora & Cherry, 2 Tenn. (2 Overt.) 426 (Tenn. 1815)