Brown v. Bledsoe

• Decision Date: 01 January 1879
• Citation: 1 Idaho 746
• Parties: R. B. Brown, Appellant, v. R. Bledsoe And C. W. Moore, Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

1 Idaho 746

R. B. Brown, Appellant, v. R. Bledsoe And C. W. Moore, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 1, 1879

PURCHASER OF REAL ESTATE-REPRESENTATIONS BY VENDOR.-A purchaser of real estate is bound to exercise ordinary prudence and discretion and if the means of knowledge are within his power, and he neglects to make the proper inquiry, he loses his remedy against the vendor, for any representations the latter makes.

FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS BY VENDOR.-False representations by a vendor to the purchaser, as to the situation, condition, and value of real estate, are not actionable, even though knowingly made, unless the purchaser has been fraudulently induced to forbear inquiry as to their truth.

APPEAL from the Second Judicial District, Alturas County.

Brumback & Cahalan, for the Appellant. Huston & Gray and V. S Anderson, for the Respondents.

CLARK J.,

delivered the opinion.

PRICKETT, J., concurred.

The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below sustained the same and gave judgment for defendants. A demurrer on this ground will lie when the defects in the complaint are such as would render the count bad on general demurrer at law, or bad for a want of equity in chancery. The complaint, therefore, to be overthrown on this ground, must present defects so fatal in character as to authorize the court to say, taking all the facts to be admitted, that they do not set forth a cause of action.

The action is for false and fraudulent representations, made by defendants to plaintiff, whereby he was induced to purchase certain mining ground mentioned and described in the complaint, to his damage, in the sum of twenty thousand and forty-nine dollars and forty-eight cents. In order to maintain this action, the complaint must allege substantially: 1. That the representations made by defendants were false; 2. That defendants knew them to be false; 3. That they made them with intent to defraud plaintiff; 4. That such representations were material, and not matters of opinion; 5. That the plaintiff relied upon such representations in making the contract or doing the act from which the damages arose 6. That plaintiff was fraudulently induced to forbear inquiry as to the truth of the representations made by defendants.

The representations complained of as fraudulent in this action, were made prior to June 23d, by defendant Bledsoe to plaintiff, at San Francisco, state of California. On that day, as appears by the complaint, the plaintiff and defendant, Bledsoe, at the place aforesaid, entered into an agreement in writing (which agreement is annexed to and made a part of the complaint, and marked exhibit "A"), whereby defendant Bledsoe agreed to convey, or cause to be conveyed, to plaintiff,

his heirs or assigns, five-sixths of the mining property described in the first subdivision of the said agreement, upon the terms and conditions in said agreement contained.

The plaintiff, his heirs, or assigns, were to elect or determine on or before the tenth day of July, 1877, whether he or they shall purchase the said mining ground upon the terms and conditions specified in the agreement aforesaid. It will be observed that the plaintiff had about seventeen days from the time of making the agreement within which to make himself acquainted with the character and value of the property contracted to be sold, and of the truth or falsity of the representations complained of in this action, before making a purchase of the property. The complaint does not show that plaintiff made any effort between the twenty-third day of June, 1877, and the tenth day of July, 1877, to ascertain the condition, character, or value of the property contracted to be sold, or as to the truth or falsity of the representations complained of in this action, neither does the complaint show that defendant Bledsoe or defendant Moore, their agents, or other persons under them, or either of them, made any effort in any way or manner to induce the plaintiff to forbear inquiry concerning the property, or the property adjoining the same on the east or west boundaries thereof, or to forbear inquiry as to the truth of the statements or representations made by defendant Bledsoe, and set forth in the complaint as the grounds of this action, and from all that appears in the complaint, the plaintiff had full liberty and free access to the property, so that he might become fully acquainted with the same, before he was required under the agreement to purchase or not.

A purchaser is bound to exercise ordinary prudence and discretion, and if the means of knowledge are within his power, and he neglects to make the proper inquiry, he loses his remedy against the vendor for any representations the latter may make. (Bell v. Byerson, 11 Iowa, 233, 77 Am. Dec. 142; Schermerhorn v. Gouge, 13 Abb. Pr. 315; White v. Seaver, 25 Barb. 235; Burton v. Wellers. 6 Litt. (Ky.) 32; Parker v.

Moulton, 114 Mass. 99, 19 Am. Rep. 315; Ellis v. Andrews, 56 N.Y. 83, 15 Am. Rep. 379.)

False representations as to the condition, situation, and value of...