Boyd v. Wahl

• Decision Date: 03 June 1913
• Parties: BOYD v. WAHL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

157 S.W. 833

BOYD v. WAHL.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 3, 1913.

1. FRAUD (§ 59) — FRAUD AND DECEIT — MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

Where a party who exchanged land for an electric light plant at valuations agreed upon instead of rescinding for defendant's fraudulent representations as to the value of the plant retained the plant and sued for damages for the fraud and deceit, the measure of damages was the difference between the actual value of the electric light plant at the time of the exchange and what its value would have been if defendant's representations had been true; and hence it was error to admit evidence of the value of the land exchanged therefor by plaintiff and to charge that the measure of damages would be the difference between the value of such land and the value of the electric light plant.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1050) — REVIEW — HARMLESS ERROR.

Such error was not harmless where there was evidence fixing the value of the land exchanged for the plant at more than the value of the plant agreed upon at the time of the exchange, since plaintiff could recover only the full measure of his bargain, which could not exceed the agreed valuation of the plant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; R. S. Ryors, Judge.

Action by Angus Boyd against George A. Wahl. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Frank H. Farris, of Rolla, O. E. Meyersieck, of Union, and Jesse H. Schaper, of Washington, for appellant. James Booth, of Pacific, and John W. Booth, of Washington, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

This is a suit for damages accrued to plaintiff through fraud and deceit alleged to have been practiced upon him by defendant in the exchange of properties. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

Plaintiff exchanged his farm situate in Crawford county and one-half interest in 80 acres of land in Washington county and two city lots in an addition to Kansas City to defendant for an electric light plant, its good will, franchises, etc., and certain town lots in Wellsville, Mo. It appears defendant represented the value of the property he sold to plaintiff to be $13,850 and that it yielded a monthly net income of $200 per month. The electric light plant was incumbered for $3,500 and the sale to plaintiff was made subject to such incumbrances. The equity of redemption was computed between the parties and valued at $10,350. Plaintiff's farm and other property was valued at $11,650, but incumbered for $800, and it was conveyed to defendant subject to this incumbrance. The equity in the farm together with the Kansas City city lots and one-half interest in 80 acres of land in Washington county was computed and valued between the parties at $10,850. The case proceeds on the theory plaintiff made certain false and fraudulent representations touching the value of the electric light plant, its income, and the net profits it yielded. It is said it proved to be of but slight value when measured by profits returned.

There is evidence tending to prove that the false representations concerning the electric light plant and its value so made by defendant were designed to deceive plaintiff, and that plaintiff believed them, relied thereon, and was thereby induced to purchase it by exchanging his property therefor. Deeds to the properties were exchanged between the parties, and plaintiff entered into possession of the electric light plant on March 1st. Plaintiff operated the plant from March 1st for about 3½ months until June 14th, when he sold it. In operating the plant, plaintiff discovered that its value, its business, and income, together with its yield of profits, had been greatly exaggerated by defendant. However, he retained the property until June 14th, when he sold it to another. During the interim he instituted this suit against defendant for damages accrued to him on the grounds of fraud and deceit, setting forth the several false and fraudulent representations relied upon. The jury found the issue for plaintiff and awarded him a verdict of $5,000. It is from this verdict and the judgment thereon the appeal is prosecuted.

Though it appears plaintiff purchased the electric light plant and town lots, franchises, etc., from defendant at the agreed valuation of $13,850, and though it appears too that he paid therefor by exchanging his farm and other property at the agreed valuation of $11,650 and by deducting the amount of the incumbrance, the court permitted him to prove the value of his farm and other property exchanged therefor as the purchase price to be as high as $14,500, but incumbered for $800. This evidence was objected to by defendant, but nevertheless admitted over his exception. Obviously the court erred in receiving this evidence tending to inflate the purchase price, for it in no manner touched upon the measure of recovery. If the purchase price is to be looked to at all as affording the criterion by which the amount of plaintiff's compensation should be determined (and it is not), it would seem that the agreed value of his property, that is $11,650, should prevail. However, the purchase price paid by plaintiff is not the true measure of his recovery, but rather it is the loss of the thing he was induced to believe he had gotten by the purchase. Where the purchaser so...