Boles v. Aldridge
| Decision Date | 28 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2552.) |
| Citation | 175 S.W. 1052 |
| Parties | BOLES v. ALDRIDGE et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
J. Ralph Bell and Davis & Davis, all of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error. Potter, Culp & Culp and Stuart, Bell & Moore, all of Gainesville, for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error, Boles, being the owner of certain town lots and 200 acres of land in Cooke county, made an exchange of his property with the defendants in error, Aldridge and wife, for a tract of 640 acres owned by the latter in Reagan county, based, as he claims, upon certain material representations made by Aldridge concerning the Reagan county land, which the evidence tended to show were untrue. The suit was by Boles to cancel the trade upon the ground of the misrepresentation. The trial court instructed a verdict against him. The honorable Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment because, among other reasons, the evidence disclosed that in making the statements constituting the basis of the suit Aldridge informed Boles that he had not seen the Reagan county land, and that his representation concerning it was based upon what others had told him.
We think the case should have gone to the jury. It is true that Aldridge related that he had never been upon the land; but, according to Boles' testimony, his statements concerning it which induced the trade were not made as merely the communication of his information. They were made as affirmative representations, followed by or in conjunction with a statement that he had never been upon it. But this, according to Boles' testimony, was not all that Aldridge said. He added that while he had never been upon the land, "he knew the parties that had been upon it; that they were perfectly reliable; and he would guaranty what they had told him." This amounted to nothing less than his adoption of the statements of such parties, and his assumption of full responsibility for them. It was a character of statement calculated to allay suspicion and restrain investigation, rather than excite doubt or induce inquiry; and there can be no doubt of material representations, made under such circumstances, affording sufficient ground for an action of this nature.
The positive representation as a fact of that which is untrue and concerning which a party has no knowledge is equivalent to an assertion that he knows it to be true, and, where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v. Barrington
...as to acreage was in fact false, though made without knowledge that it was untrue. Loper v. Robinson, 54 Tex. 510, 514; Boles v. Aldridge, 107 Tex. 209, 175 S. W. 1052; Prideaux v. Roark (Tex. Com. App.) 291 S. W. 868, 870; Barclay v. Deyerle (Tex. Civ. App.) 116 S. W. 123, 125, 126 (writ r......
-
Barbian v. Grant
...if the statements so repeated amounted to a representation of its character that induced the appellant to make the exchange. Boles v. Aldridge, 175 S. W. 1052. Nor do we think it can be said that, as a matter of law, the appellees John and W. B. Wiltshire are to be discharged under the evid......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. Thomas
...5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 669; Id., 49 Tex. Civ. App. 395, 108 S. W. 502; Alenkowsky v. R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 188 S. W. 956; Boles v. Aldridge, 107 Tex. 209, 175 S. W. 1052. We think the jury had a right to conclude from those facts, as they did, that Haley and Graves took advantage of Dr. Daniel......
-
Dillard v. Clutter
...of the cattle business in making the purchase. Lawson-Richards, Inc., v. Blalock Lbr. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 797; Boles v. Aldridge, 107 Tex. 209, 175 S.W. 1052. The contentions made by appellants are, therefore, reduced to the one question of whether or not they were entitled to the ......