Bullitt v. Farrar
| Decision Date | 06 November 1889 |
| Citation | 42 Minn. 8 |
| Parties | LOGAN M. BULLITT <I>vs.</I> FRANK W. FARRAR. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, to recover damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by defendant on November 4, 1886, when selling (as agent for the owner) lot 11, block 2, in Haldeman's addition to St. Paul. The sale was made at defendant's office in that city, and the representation alleged in the complaint was "that said lot was not more than five or six, and certainly not over seven feet below the grade of Goodrich avenue, in the city of St. Paul, in front of said lot, and was above the grade of said avenue in the rear of said lot," and the complaint alleges that in fact the lot was "more than seven feet below the level of Goodrich avenue in front, to wit 19 and 6-10 feet below the grade of said avenue, and that said lot is not above grade in the rear, but is and was at the highest point in the rear 5 and 2-10 feet below the grade of said avenue." The making of the representation was put in issue by the answer, and, at the trial, before Kelly, J., was the subject of conflicting testimony. It appeared from the evidence introduced by plaintiff that the grade of Goodrich avenue through Haldeman's addition was established in April, 1886, and the work of grading it was about completed on November 1, 1886, and that the lot was below grade to the extent stated in the complaint. The defendant, when called as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he told plaintiff that the lot "lay below grade; how much I did not know," and his counsel offered to prove that at the time of the sale "the defendant did not know what the depth of this lot was below the grade, either in front or rear." On plaintiff's objection this was excluded as immaterial, the defendant excepting. The defendant's request for instruction, which was refused, is stated in the opinion. The plaintiff had a verdict of $425, and appeals from an order granting a new trial.
Rogers, Hadley & Selmes, for appellant.
Henry C. James, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for deceit in the sale of a city lot. As claimed by plaintiff, the deceit consisted in false and fraudulent statements and representations made by the defendant — who made the sale as the agent or broker of another person — as to the grade of the lot. The plaintiff obtained a verdict, and his appeal is from an order granting defendant's motion for a new trial. There is nothing in the record tending to indicate that the court below did not consider each of the grounds urged in defendant's motion, viz., that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, and that error in law occurred upon the trial, which was duly excepted to; but it seems evident that a new trial was granted because the court was of the opinion that it had erred in refusing to charge the jury, upon defendant's request, as follows:
It will be seen, upon an examination of Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197, (20 N. W. Rep. 138,) that the principal portion of this request was taken bodily from the opinion in that case, which, on the facts, was wholly different from the one at bar. There the deceit consisted, as claimed by plaintiff, in false and fraudulent representations made by defendant's agent, making the sale of mining stock, as to the value, condition, and productiveness of a mine, and as to the company's indebtedness. From the plaintiff's own showing, the agent had never been at the mine, and hence had no personal knowledge of its character or condition, but made his statements from reports received and information derived from others; all of which was known by the plaintiff. The testimony, in the judgment of the court, entirely failed to show that this agent knew the representations to be false, or that he did not honestly believe them to be true, or that he misstated the extent or sources of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial