Bliss v. Holmes

• Decision Date: 16 February 1932
• Docket Number: Case Number: 19753
• Citation: 1932 OK 114,9 P.2d 718,156 Okla. 40
• Parties: BLISS et al. v. HOLMES.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1932 OK 114

9 P.2d 718

156 Okla. 40

BLISS et al. v. HOLMES.

Case Number: 19753

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 16, 1932

Syllabus

¶0 1.Torts--Liability for Malicious Interference With Contract for Sale of Hotel Furnishings.

Where A. enters into a contract to sell hotel furniture and fixtures to B. for a consideration of $ 4,500, and C. and D., without justifiable or excusable cause, induce B. to breach said contract, said interference is a violation of a legal right, and C. and D. are liable to A. for all damage resulting from the breach of said contract.

2.Same--"Malice" Defined.

"Malice," in the sense used herein, means a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Edwin R. McNeill, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Geo. R. Holmes against Nancy A. Bliss and C. W. Bliss.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.Affirmed.

Louis W. Pratt, for plaintiffs in error.

Tom G. Wiley and A. E. Williams, for defendant in error.

CLARK, V. C. J.

¶1Defendant in error was plaintiff below and plaintiffs in error were defendants below.For convenience the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.Plaintiff filed this action in the district court of Tulsa county for damages against the defendants.She alleged in her petition, in substance, that she was the owner of certain furniture located in the Annex Hotel; that she had advertised the same for sale; that she entered into a contract and agreement to sell the same to Mrs. Joan Park; that the hotel building belonged to the defendants, C. W. Bliss and Nancy A. Bliss; that Mrs. Park had entered into an oral agreement with plaintiff to purchase such property for $ 4,500--$ 1,000 down and $ 100 per month; that she called on the defendants to lease the property for the purpose of operating a hotel therein; that the defendants advised the would-be purchaser, Joan Park, that the property was of little or no value and that she was very foolish to buy that furniture; that it was old and merely "junk," and that she could buy new furniture for what she was giving for the old furniture.Mrs. Park did not consummate the deal and plaintiff was later forced to sell the furniture for $ 1,350 to a secondhand dealer; that the plaintiff was thereby damaged in the sum of $ 3,150 by the fraudulent, wrongful, unlawful, and malicious interference and false representations on the part of defendants herein and each of them; that said purchaser so obtained by plaintiff would have consummated said deal and would have entered into said written contract; and that plaintiff would have been able to dispose of her said furniture and fixtures at the price of $ 4,500.

¶2Plaintiff further alleges that by reason of said unlawful, wrongful, fraudulent, and malicious acts and interferences on the part of defendants and each of them, she was damaged in the amount of $ 3,150 actual damages and the further sum of $ 5,000 exemplary damages for the wrongful acts of said defendants.

¶3Defendants answered by way of general denial.The cause came on for trial before a jury and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff against defendants in the sum of $ 3,150.Motion for new trial was filed, overruled, and the cause was brought here for review.

¶4Defendants in their brief present the following assignments of error:

(1) Said court erred in overruling the demurrer of the plaintiffs in error to the amended petition of the defendant in error.

(2) Said court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiffs in error for judgment in favor of plaintiffs in error upon the opening statement of counsel for defendant in error.

(4) Said court erred in reopening the case after the defendant in error had rested and plaintiffs in error had demurred to the evidence of the defendant in error and allowing defendant in error to recall witnesses for the purpose of supplying a fatal defect.

(5) Said court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiffs in error to the evidence on the part of defendant in error.

¶5Joan Park, as a witness, testified that she entered into this contract with Mrs. Holmes, plaintiff, and would have carried the same out but was prevented thereby by the representations of the defendants, who stated to her that the furniture was of no value and was "junk" and that she could buy new furniture cheaper than she could buy the old furniture.Another witness called by plaintiff--G.L. Leach--testified that about the first of March he had a talk with the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bliss, and Mr. Bliss told him that some woman was negotiating for the Annex Hotel and was offering Mrs. Holmes $ 5,000 for it, and that he, Bliss, stated to the prospective purchaser: "I don't see why you would offer her $ 5,000 for that trash; it isn't worth $ 1,000."His testimony was to the effect that Mr. and Mrs. Bliss were both present when the conversation was had, and that they had blocked the deal between Joan Park and Mrs. Holmes.The testimony further shows that the furniture was worth approximately $ 4,000.

¶6The defendants, Nancy Bliss and C. W. Bliss, testified that no conversation was had between them and Mrs. Park, the prospective purchaser, in regard to the furniture trade.

¶7 There is one question in this appeal which demands a consideration of this court, and that is: Was it actionable tort for the defendants to make the representations made to Mrs. Park in regard to plaintiff's furniture?There is a conflict in the testimony; however, all questions of fact were submitted to the jury, and this...