Bunch v. Munger Securities Co.

• Decision Date: 09 May 1919
• Docket Number: No. 2090.,2090.
• Citation: 211 S.W. 703
• Parties: BUNCH v. MUNGER SECURITIES CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

211 S.W. 703

BUNCH v. MUNGER SECURITIES CO.

No. 2090.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 9, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.

Action by Frank Bunch against the Munger Securities Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

O. L. Munger, of Piedmont, for appellant. Stuart L. Clark, of Van Buren, for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

The plaintiff, being the purchaser, sues the defendant as vendor for fraud and deceit in the sale of a tract of land in Carter county, Mo. The plaintiff lived at the time at Indianapolis, Ind., and says that defendant by its letters, circulars, etc., misrepresented the productiveness of this land, thereby inducing him to contract for this tract and pay $15 thereon and to incur the expenses of moving with his wife and child to the land in question. He sued and obtained judgment for the amount paid on the land, plus his expenses in moving to the land, amounting to $59.35 in all. The fact that the amount involved is small does not lessen the importance of or difficulties in the legal questions involved, but will excuse a lengthy statement of the facts or discussion of the applicable law.

The defendant owned some 75,000 acres of unimproved, cut-over land in Carter, Reynolds, and adjoining counties, which it divided in some 5,000 tracts of 10 and 20 acres each, and put on sale at $300 per tract, $5 down and $5 per month till paid for, the purchaser to pay no interest and no taxes. The lands were advertised especially as to raising fruit and truck framing. The purchaser, on paying $5, got a contract under which he had 90 days in which to look over and investigate the land and make a selection of any unsold tract he desired. The 10-acre tracts were near the towns or railroads, and the 20-acre tracts further away. The purchaser might also within such time exchange any tract selected for any other unsold tract that suited him better. The defendant had platted the town of Hunter in Carter county and three or four other towns on its land, and gave each purchaser three town lots. It also agreed to give each purchaser a credit for railroad fare paid out in visiting the lands not to exceed $20. Defendant also owned a considerable orchard near the town of Hunter which it agreed to enlarge to 1,000 acres, operated a canning establishment, etc., all of which was ultimately to be turned over to a corporation of which the purchasers of its lands were to be the stockholders, and each purchaser, including plaintiff, was given 300 shares in this proposed corporation. No complaint is made, however, that defendant was not carrying out these collateral agreements in good faith, and this action is bottomed solely on the misrepresentations as to the productiveness of the land selected by plaintiff.

Plaintiff, being induced thereto by an advertisement, paid defendant $5 and got his certificate of purchase on August 12, 1915. Defendant's main office was at Kansas City, but it maintained a local office at Hunter, Mo. The plaintiff thereupon went to this land, reporting at Hunter, Mo. After being there n days, he selected a tract and wrote defendant that he was well pleased, and re.:witted the second payment of $5. Still remaining there, as he has to this day, plaintiff a month latter wrote again to the same effect and made the third payment of $5. No further payments were made for the reason, as plaintiff says, that in November, 1915, he ascertained that the land was not as represented, decided not to take any land, and on November 23d he demanded a return of the $15 previously paid. The plaintiff always signed his name, "Rev. Frank Bunch," and in October wrote that "I am heare holding a meaton at this place."

We may now dispose of plaintiff's claim for damages for the expense of bringing his family (wife and child) from Indianapolis, Ind., to this land; for it is shown that he did not do this till in January, 1916. According to his own evidence he discovered the alleged false representations as to this land not later than November 23, 1915, and then fully made up his mind not to take or pay for the land for that reason, and demanded a return of what he had already paid. It is quite clear that he did not incur this expense till after he was fully aware of the false representations, if any, and had repudiated his purchase...