Bergeron v. Miles

• Decision Date: 23 October 1894
• Citation: 88 Wis. 397,60 N.W. 783
• Parties: BERGERON v. MILES.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

88 Wis. 397

60 N.W. 783

BERGERON

v.MILES.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 23, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Chippewa county; R. D. Marshall, Judge.

Action by Charles Bergeron against David E. Miles to recover money fraudulently obtained. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

One McDonough had an option to purchase certain lands belonging to one Mrs. Putnam, for the sum of $3,000. The defendant induced the plaintiff to purchase with him an undivided one-half of the lands. Each was to pay one-half of the purchase price thereof, and to hold the same as equal joint owners. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that the price of the lands was $8,000, and that the lands were worth that price. The plaintiff gave the defendant $4,000, to be used in paying his share of the purchase money. The defendant paid for the lands with $3,000 of that money, and obtained a deed of the lands to himself and the plaintiff jointly, and kept the remaining $1,000 himself. The defendant himself paid nothing for the lands. On learning the facts with reference to the price paid for the land, the plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant the amount of money so delivered to the defendant in excess of his share of the price actually paid for the land. On the trial the court submitted to the jury two questions: “(1) Did the plaintiff enter into an agreement with the defendant to join with him in the purchase of one-half interest in the lands mentioned in the complaint, through McDonough, with the understanding that the consideration of such purchase was to be eight thousand dollars, one-half to be paid by plaintiff, and one-half by defendant? And (2) if to the first question you say, ‘yes,’ did the defendant represent and tell plaintiff that the purchase price of eight thousand dollars was Mrs. Putnam's price for the lands, and that the same was to be paid to her?” It was agreed by the parties that these two questions covered all the controverted issues in the case. The jury answered both questions in the affirmative. The court gave judgment on the verdict, for the plaintiff, for $2,500. From that judgment the defendant appeals.T. J. Connor, for appellant.

T. F. Frawley and H. Richardson, for respondent.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

On the question whether the relation of the parties was such that the deceit practised upon the plaintiff by the defendant will support the action the case very much resembles Grant v. Hardy, 33 Wis....