Bartlett v. Falk

• Decision Date: 25 January 1900
• Citation: 110 Iowa 346,81 N.W. 602
• Parties: BARTLETT v. FALK ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

110 Iowa 346

81 N.W. 602

BARTLETT

v.FALK ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 25, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Fremont county; N. W. Macy, Judge.

This action was commenced against A. P. Falk, Calvin Reese, and D. J. Hutchinson, defendants, to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations concerning the title, kind, and quality of certain land which the plaintiff was induced, by said representations, to take and pay for. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, acting together by arrangement preconcerted between them, made said false representations to induce plaintiff to take said land at an exorbitant price, and that he was thereby induced to do so, to his damage $10,000. The defendants answered, denying the alleged conspiracy, misrepresentations, and damage, and, upon trial had, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant A. P. Falk in the sum of $862.50, and in favor of the defendant Reese. Verdict having been directed in favor of the defendant Hutchinson, judgment was rendered on the verdict, and defendant A. P. Falk appeals. Affirmed.Mayne & Hazelton, for appellant.

W. E. Mitchell, for appellee.

GIVEN, J.

1. Appellant complains of certain rulings and action of the court in taking the testimony. A witness was permitted to testify in chief to what appellant told him he had represented to the plaintiff as to the land. The complaint is that this was after the contract had been fully made; but that is no reason why the statements of Falk, as to what he had represented to the plaintiff concerning the land, should not be admitted, nor was there any error in the court directing this witness to state what Falk said to him as to the representations he had made to Bartlett about the land. Plaintiff was permitted to testify that he was induced to buy the land by the representations that had been made to him that it was second bottom land, and never overflowed. While, in a sense, the answer is a conclusion of the witness, yet, under repeated rulings of this court, it was competent for the witness to testify as to what induced him to take the land.

2. Some complaint is made against the instructions, but the only one requiring notice is that directing the jury that it might find against the defendant Falk alone. It is insisted that Falk did not reside in Fremont county, and that Reese, a resident of that county, was made a defendant, that the suit might be brought therein. So far as appears, the suit was...