Brayton v. Gunby
| Citation | 267 S.W. 450 |
| Decision Date | 29 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 15102.,15102. |
| Parties | BRAYTON v. GUNBY. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; Vernon L. Drain, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Louetta E. Brayton against William J. Gunby. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Scott J. Miller, of Chillicothe, for appellant.
Bresnehen & Burns, of Brookfield, Dan R. Hughes, of Macon, and S. L. Sheetz, of Chillicothe, for respondent.
Plaintiff sued to recover $6,900 damages, based on defendant's alleged fraud and deceit. A verdict of $3,000 was returned in her favor, `and, judgment being rendered thereon, defendant appealed. The evidence in plaintiff's behalf tends to show the following:
Plaintiff, a resident of Chillicothe for 24 years, was the"owner of certain real estate in the suburbs of said city. Defendant was a real estate broker therein. He sought out plaintiff at her residence and proposed that she trade her property for certain farm land in Kansas, reminding her that she had theretofore always "done well with his trades." He then told her he had been on the Kansas land and knew just what it was; that it was good wheat and alfalfa land, with no rock, gypsum, or alkali on it; that it was as good as, if not better than, the average land out there, and had but one little draw on it, about the size of the small branch on plaintiff's land; that the Kansas land was fenced with rock posts and three wires; that there had not been a crop failure out there in the past 10 years, and that all she had to do was to go out and plow and break it up and put in a crop; that the land was worth from $20 to $50 per acre, and the value "was coming up all the time."
There was evidence tending to show, further, that defendant told her there was a mortgage on the land for $900, which he would pay off; that she agreed to trade, and the defendant drew the necessary conveyances for the pieces of property conveyed; but that she did not employ the defendant to do this or any other thing. There was testimony to the further effect that the plaintiff's intention was for her husband and son to go out there and put the land in wheat, but defendant said that would never do but that she should go along with them, and induced her to purchase a team and wagon in which to go; that, as she had no money for that purpose or to engage in farming, defendant lent her $600 with which she bought the wagon and team and drove out to Kansas to the land for the purpose of putting the land in wheat; that she gave no deed of trust to secure said loan of $600, but it was agreed that he should have the first wheat crop to secure him; that she drove in the wagon out to the Kansas land, but found when she got there that it was not good wheat and alfalfa land, but was covered with alkali; and was composed of sandy gravel and rock, with "bunch grass" thereon; that nothing would grow where the alkali was, and the land did not look as if it had ever been farmed; that there was no fence on the land, and there were seven or eight draws on the land, about 8 or 10 feet across, and from 5 to 8 feet deep, whose banks were perpendicular, and which could not be crossed at all; that there was no wheat land near this land, nor were the people in that vicinity raising wheat or farming, but using the country merely for grazing purposes; that the land was not agricultural land, but was, or had been, a government timber claim, and was of no value, or at the most not worth in excess of $5 per acre, though defendant had represented it to be of the value of from $20 to $50 per acre, and that it Would be worth more if the land were in Missouri.
The evidence was to the further effect that defendant was to give plaintiff a warranty deed, but had mailed to her, after she had left for Kansas, a quitclaim deed; that, instead of paying off the $900 deed of trust which was on the land, defendant afterward had the same foreclosed; that plaintiff was to give defendant a deed of trust on the land for $1,000, and that she signed the $1,000 trust deed, but it afterwards proved to be a deed of trust for $1,300; that plaintiff had had "a stroke" and her eyesight was not good; that the $1,000 deed of trust was for the difference in value of the two places, and plaintiff was to have 10 years in which to pay it. It further appeared in evidence that plaintiff was unacquainted with the Kansas land and knew nothing of it, except what she was told by defendant, and that she had confidence in him, and believed and relied upon what he told her about it.
As the verdict is in plaintiff's favor, the evidence in her behalf must be accepted as true; and defendant's evidence, is so far as it conflicts with hers, must be disregarded. It is manifest, therefore, that there is ample evidence to justify a finding for plaintiff on her cause of action based on fraud and deceit. Prior to bringing the suit at bar, plaintiff brought a suit based upon the same facts as to the alleged fraud, but which, on account of certain peculiar allegations in the petition, appears to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Becker v. Thompson, 31854.
...259 S.W. 458, 302 Mo. 672; Palmer v. Moyers, 298 S.W. 101; Addis v. Swofford, 180 S.W. 548; Zeitinger v. Steinberg, 277 S.W. 956; Brayton v. Gunby, 267 S.W. 450; Brigham v. Judy Co., 186 S.W. 15; Boyd v. Wahl, 175 Mo. App. 181; Kendrick v. Ryus, 225 Mo. 150; Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.......
-
Becker v. Thompson
...259 S.W. 458, 302 Mo. 672; Palmer v. Moyers, 298 S.W. 101; Addis v. Swofford, 180 S.W. 548; Zeitinger v. Steinberg, 277 S.W. 956; Brayton v. Gunby, 267 S.W. 450; Brigham v. Judy Co., 186 S.W. 15; Boyd Wahl, 175 Mo.App. 181; Kendrick v. Ryus, 225 Mo. 150; Wolfersberger v. Miller, 39 S.W.2d 7......
-
Conkling v. Henry Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg. Co.
... ... sustained the case then stands as though there had never been ... a trial. [Brayton v. Gunby (Mo. App.), 267 S.W. 450, ... 452; Hurley v. Kennally, 186 Mo. 225, 228, 229, 85 ... S.W. 357; Star Bottling Co. v. Exposition Co., 240 ... ...
-
Willis v. Willis
...leaves the case for trial de novo as though there had been no trial [Smith v. Smith, Mo.App., 176 S.W.2d 647, 649(3); Brayton v. Gunby, Mo.App., 267 S.W. 450, 452(5); Dierman v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co., 144 Mo.App. 474, 129 S.W. 229, 230(2), opinion adopted 163 Mo.App. 522, 143 S.W. 1197], leav......