Bouxsein v. First Nat. Bank of Granville

• Decision Date: 21 April 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13267.,13267.
• Citation: 292 Ill. 500,127 N.E. 133
• Parties: BOUXSEIN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF GRANVILLE et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

292 Ill. 500

127 N.E. 133

BOUXSEIN

v.FIRST NAT. BANK OF GRANVILLE et al.

No. 13267.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 21, 1920.

Suit by Cornelius Bouxsein against the First National Bank of Granville and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Putnam County; Charles V. Miles, judge.

Harry K. Ward, of Granville, and Barnes Magoon & Black, of Lacon, for appellant.

George W. Hunt, of Hennepin, and Woodward & Hibbs, of Ottawa, for appellees.

THOMPSON, J.

Appellant, Cornelius Bouxsein, filed his bill in the circuit court of Putnam county, Ill., asking that a certain contract for the purchase of a quarter section of land in Putnam county, Ohio, be canceled and held void on the ground that he was induced to sign said contract by false representations made by H. L. Solomon and his associates, hereinafter referred to as appellees. The bill alleges that appellant has been for many years a farmer in Putnam county, Ill.; that on the 25th day of May, 1918, appellant accepted the invitation of appellees to inspect certain lands situated in Putnam county, Ohio; that he went to Ohio and, after an inspection of lands offered for sale by appellees, entered into a contract for the purchase of the northeast quarter of section 28 in Putnam county, Ohio; that appellant was induced to enter into this contract by certain false representations made to him by appellees; that appellees represented to appellant that the ‘H. L. Solomon Company was an honest, reputable and straightforward going real estate concern,’ and that appellant ‘could rely explicitly upon all statements and representations made by said company and by all of its agents, employes, and assistants with reference to said lands and with reference to the value and the kind and character and the utility and adaptability thereof’; that appellees represented the fair cash market value of said quarter section to be $31,200, and that if it should turn out that said lands were not worth $31,200 the contract would be of no force or effect; that appellees represented that said lands ‘were level and usable and adapted for the raising of corn, wheat, and oats, and were not heavy, swampy soil that was hard to drain, and that the same contained the elements and constituents and in the same proportionas did the best farm lands in Granville township, Putnam county, Ill., and that all of the lands for miles around, in every direction from said section 28, were of the same general kind and character’; that appellant believed and relied upon all these statements and was induced by said statements to sign the contract; that since appellant signed said contract he has learned that said quarter sectionis not worth more than half the sum of $31,200, and that said lands ‘were not usable and adapted to the raising of corn, wheat, and oats, but were, in fact, heavy, swampy soil of gumbo and clay and hardpan, hard to drain and the same did not contain the constituents and in the same proportion as did the best farm lands in Putnam county, Ill., but, on the contrary, were of a wholly different chemical constituency’; and that all of said false representations were known by appellees to be false and were made by them for the purpose of inducing appellant to sign the contract. The general demurrer filed by Harry L. Solomon, Julius Solomon, and Ben Recker, partners doing business as the H. L. Solomon Company, was sustained by the chancellor and the bill dismissed for want of equity. Cornelius Bouxsein prayed and perfected this appeal.

[4] The only question presented by this appeal which we deem necessary to consider is whether the bill states a cause of action. The elements of a cause of action of this character are representation, falsity, scienter, deception, and injury. Foster v. Oberreich, 230 Ill. 525, 82 N. E. 858. The bill must show on its face: First, that the defendant has made a representation in regard to a material fact; second, that such representation is false; third, that such representation was not actually believed by defendant, on reasonable grounds, to be true; fourth, that it was made with intent that it should be acted on; fifth, that it was acted on by complainant to his damage; and, sixth, that in so acting on it the complainant was ignorant of its falsity and reasonably believed it to be true. Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U. S. 247, 8 Sup. Ct. 881, 31 L. Ed. 678;Crocker v. Manley, 164 Ill. 282, 45 N. E. 577,56 Am. St. Rep. 196. The first of the foregoing requisites excludes such statements as consist merely in an...