Barton v. Simmons

• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Hanna, J.
• Citation: Barton v. Simmons, 14 Ind. 39 (Ind. 1859)
• Decision Date: 28 November 1859
• Parties: Barton and Another v. Simmons

14 Ind. 39

Barton and Another v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 28, 1859

A Petition for a Rehearing of this Case was Filed on the 18th of January, and Overruled on the third of May, 1860.

From the Madison Circuit Court.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded.

W Grose and W. Z. Stuart, for appellants.

D Kilgore and J. Davis, for appellee.

OPINION

Hanna J.

Simmons avers in the complaint that in December, 1854, he was the owner of certain described lots and land in Madison county of the value of 3,000 dollars; that one of said defendants William Barton, then offered him 5,000 dollars for said lands, &c., payable in the capital stock of the Cincinnati and Chicago Railroad, representing the same to be of the value of fifty cents on the dollar; that said plaintiff was wholly ignorant of said stock, and so informed said William, but relying upon the honesty and candor of said William, and the representations so made, said plaintiff offered to take 6,000 dollars in said stock for said lands, &c.; that a contract was then made by which plaintiff executed a deed for said lands, &c., and placed it in the hands of a friend to be delivered to said William, if, in ten days, he should procure and deliver said amount of stock; that before the expiration of said time, he did deliver said stock and receive said deed; that said William was a merchant, and often at Cincinnati, and, therefore, had a good opportunity of knowing the value of said stock; that plaintiff lived in an obscure part of said county, and did not know the value of said stock; that said stock was then of the value only of five to seven cents on the dollar, which was known to the said William, but he fraudulently represented otherwise; that it continued of that low value until July, 1856, at which time plaintiff, for the first time, made inquiry as to and ascertained its real value, having theretofore confidently rested upon the representations of the said William as true, and having been engrossed in his business of farming; that immediately, upon so learning the true value of said stock, he tendered the same to said William, and demanded a reconveyance of said real estate, which was refused; that said William thereupon fraudulently conveyed said lands to his co-defendant, his father, who had full notice, and received the same without paying any consideration therefor," &c.

There was a demurrer to the...