Erickson v. Fisher

Citation53 N.W. 638,51 Minn. 300
PartiesERICKSON v FISHER ET AL.
Decision Date17 November 1892
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. In an action for relief on the ground of intentional fraud practiced on the plaintiff, as between the original parties, it is no defense that the plaintiff was lacking in ordinary business prudence in relying upon the false representations of the defendants.

2. In an action to rescind an executed contract of sale, the court may order restoration in specie of so much of the property as remains in the possession of the defendants, and award compensatory damages for the remainder.

3. Where the parties have, by consent, tried issues not made by the pleadings, they are bound by the result, the same as if the issues were within the pleadings.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; ENSIGN, Judge.

Action by Theodore M. Erickson against William F. Fisher, Mary A. Cremer, and others for the rescission, on the ground of fraud, of an executed contract exchanging certain real and personal property. Judgment for plaintiff. Mary A. Cremer and others appeal. Affirmed.

R. P. Edson, John Jenswold, Jr., and John B. & E. P. Sanborn, (Charles P. Brown, of counsel,) for appellants.

W. Hammons and J. A. Payne, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action for the rescission, on the ground of fraud, of an executed contract, by which plaintiff exchanged certain real and personal property in Duluth for certain lots in Ivy Hill Falls addition to St. Paul,” and a mortgage for $10,000 on certain other lots in “McCloud's Park addition to St. Paul.” Plaintiff made the trade with defendant Fisher as principal, but in fact Fisher was acting in behalf of the Cremers, and immediately transferred all the proceeds of the transaction to Mrs. Cremer. From an examination of the evidence, we are perfectly satisfied that it fully justified all the material findings of fact of the trial court. The case abounds in evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that Fisher perpetrated an intentional fraud on plaintiff, and that defendant William J. Cremer aided and abetted it. Without taking into account any other acts or representations, Fisher's misrepresentation to plaintiff as to the location of the property which he proposed to trade to him was of itself sufficient to entitle plaintiff to a rescission. Plaintiff was unacquainted with plats or the location of property in the vicinity of St. Paul. Fisher professed to take him out upon the ground, and point out the property which he proposed to turn out in the trade, but, in fact, as the court finds, fraudulently pointed out other property, differently located. Fisher's proposition was to convey to plaintiff a certain number of lots, and to transfer to him a mortgage upon a certain number of other lots, and, when they went out on the ground to see the property, Fisher did not point out any particular lots, but merely professed to point out the general locality where they were situated, and when they returned to the city plaintiff himself made the selection of the specific lots from the plats. Considerable point is attempted to be made of this, as showing that Fisher's representations were neither material nor relied on, and that plaintiff, when he made the selection from the plats, knew exactly what property he was getting. But we fail to see why the representation as to the locality where the lots were situated was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • Shrives v. Talbot, 9440
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 12, 1965
    ...P.2d 542, at 543 (1952). In Burger v. Calek, 37 Idaho 235, 215 P. 981 (1923), this court quoted with approval from Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300, at 303, 53 N.W. 638, as "As between the original parties, one who has intentionally deceived the other to his prejudice ought not to be heard ......
  • Burger v. Calek
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 28, 1923
    ...... deceived the other to his prejudice ought not to be heard to. say, in defense, that the other party ought not to have. trusted him." (Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300, at 303, 53 N.W. 638.). . . [37. Idaho 239] The supreme court of Michigan says:. . . "Where. one ......
  • Beach v. Wakefield
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 11, 1898
    ...27 Minn. 463 (8 N.W. 600); Marschuetz v. Wright, 50 Wis. 175 (6 N.W. 511); Bowers v. Thomas 62 Wis. 480 (22 N.W. 710); Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300 (53 N.W. 638). is held in this last case, where no objection is made to the introduction of evidence relating to an issue not presented by ......
  • Kempf v. Ranger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 14, 1916
    ...Aultman & Co. v. Olson, 34 Minn. 450, 453, 26 N. W. 451; Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150, 47 N. W. 448, 10 L.R.A. 606; Erickson v. Fisher, 51 Minn. 300, 53 N. W. 638. See also Eaton v. Winnie, 20 Mich. 156, 4 Am. Rep. 377; Fargo Gas & Coke Co. v. Fargo Gas & Elec. Co. 4 N. D. 219, 59 N. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT