Atherton v. Barber
| Decision Date | 09 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,942 - (134) |
| Citation | 128 N.W. 827,112 Minn. 523 |
| Parties | FLORENCE MAY ATHERTON v. JOHN P. BARBER and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,825 for alleged fraudulent representations in two exchanges of land. Among other things the complaint alleged "that in various conversations on and prior to January 3, 1907, the said J. P. Barber, represented and stated to the plaintiff that said lots owned by defendants were beautifully situated lying above grade; that the city water was already laid in the street in front of said lots, and that the telephone lines were running past said lots;" "that for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff herein to make said agreement and transfer, the said defendant wrongfully, and for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff herein and defrauding her of her property, represented and stated to the plaintiff that said property consisted of four lots of forty feet each and that it was well and reasonably worth $1,200 that he stated to the plaintiff she could readily make sale of each of said forty foot lots at $300 each and that there was a demand for the same at that price," but that, in fact, said lots sold and transferred by said defendants herein to the plaintiff were not up to grade, were low, and the same were not desirable for building purposes, and in truth and in fact, there was no demand or market for said lots; that the city water was not within a mile of said lots that there were no telephone poles or lines near said lots there was no beautiful or any residence on the corner across from said lots, and only an unpainted small house across the street from said lots which did not cost to construct to exceed $300; and that the property conveyed to plaintiff was not of any greater value than $300. The substance of the answers is stated in the opinion. The case was tried before John Day Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,570. From an order denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, they appealed. Affirmed.
Sale of land -- liability of wife for husband's false representations.
In an action against a husband and wife to recover damages for deceit in a real estate transaction, the complaint charged that the title to the property deeded to the respondent stood in the name of the wife of the appellant, and that she deeded it to respondent in pursuance of negotiations fraudulently conducted by her husband with respondent. Held:
1. The complaint states a cause of action in deceit as against both husband and wife. In such a case the wife is liable for the torts and fraudulent representations of the husband, committed by him in the course of and within the scope of his agency, even if she did not expressly authorize them. The benefit which she received by the transaction is not necessarily the limit of the amount of recovery against her for the fraud. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding that the husband was her agent in procuring a sale or exchange of the property involved.
2. The court did not err in permitting an amendment to the reply that a third party was apparently acting as the agent of respondent in the execution of the contracts, when in fact he was the representative of appellants.
3. No error is discovered with reference to certain rulings of the trial court on the reception of evidence.
Jesse Van Valkenburg, for appellants.
A. M. Harrison, for respondent.
Action for the purpose of recovering damages for fraudulently inducing respondent to enter into and to execute a contract for certain real estate. The answer of appellant Mrs. Barber was a general denial, and the answer of appellant Mrs. Barber was a general denial, and the answer of appellant Mr. Barber denied any fraudulent representations, and alleged that the exchanges were made by him at the solicitation of respondent and her duly-authorized agent, one Nyborg. Respondent's reply admitted that Nyborg acted for her, but alleged, on information and belief, that by collusion and agreement between Barber and Nyborg the latter became...
To continue reading
Request your trial