Busse v. White

• Decision Date: 14 July 1925
• Docket Number: 26018
• Citation: 274 S.W. 1046
• Parties: BUSSE et al. v. WHITE et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

274 S.W. 1046

BUSSE et al. v. WHITE et al

No. 26018

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

July 14, 1925

D. W Shackleford, of Jefferson City, Jerry M. Jeffries, of Moberly, and Sam B. Jeffries, Arthur E. Simpson, and Paul F Plummer, all of St. Louis, for appellants.

Roy D Williams, of Booneville, for respondents.

OPINION

WHITE, J.

A judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was rendered in the circuit court of Randolph county, against the defendants, for the sum of $ 2,096.77, and the plaintiffs appealed because of the alleged inadequacy of the verdict. The suit was for damages for fraudulent representations regarding the value of the land in Callaway county which the defendants traded to the plaintiffs.

This is the second appearance of this case. The plaintiffs on a former trial obtained judgment in the sum of $ 1,000, and on appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. The case is reported. 302 Mo. 672, 259 S.W. 458.

The plaintiffs owned two farms in the state of Mississippi, one consisting of 706 acres, the other consisting of 122 acres, and while they were the owners of said farms they concluded a trade with defendants by which the Mississippi farms were exchanged for a farm in Callaway county. The third amended petition on which the trial was had, after stating that defendants undertook to find a trade for plaintiffs for their Mississippi farms, alleges as follows:

'(3) That between March 1, 1920, and July 15, 1920, defendants acquired an option to buy a certain 508-acre farm, situate in Callaway county, Mo., at $ 65 an acre, and about July 18, 1920, they bought it under said option and caused the title thereto to be conveyed to G. M. Gallemore, as their dummy, to be by him conveyed as they might direct.

'(4) That, after having acquired said option, and before July 15, 1920, defendants represented to plaintiffs that, in compliance with said undertaking, they had found a 508-acre farm in Callaway county, Mo., which could be bought, and that it was the property of G. M. Gallemore, and that he had just bought it at $ 175 an acre, and that it was then worth more than $ 175 an acre.'

The petition then alleges that the said representations were false, and known by defendants to be false, and were made with intent to deceive the plaintiffs, who were deceived and induced thereby to purchase the 508-acre farm in Callaway county at $ 200 an acre. They ask damages in the sum of $ 55,800, the difference between the represented and the actual value of the farm.

The answer, after stating the ownership of the several farms and the relationship of the parties, alleges that both plaintiffs and defendants were experienced real estate operators; that in the change of real estate between the plaintiffs and defendants there was a written contract which was the final agreement between the parties; that the plaintiffs wrongfully, and with intent to cheat and defraud the defendants and wrongfully to obtain evidence against them for the purpose of suing them for damages, suggested to the defendants that fictitious values be recited and inserted in the contract and in the deed to the real estate in Callaway county, Mo., and in the deeds to the land in the state of Mississippi, and that the plaintiffs 'fraudulently induced said defendants to insert in said deeds and in said contract a greatly exaggerated value of the Callaway county farm'; that all of said recitations of value were fictitious and greatly in excess of the real value was well known to all the parties; and that the exchange was made without belief in, or reliance upon, such fictitious values so recited. The answer further contains a general denial of the allegations of the petition. There was also a counterclaim.

The facts are rather fully set out in the report of this case on a former hearing, as cited above, and it is unnecessary to state them at length here.

The contract signed by the parties describes the several farms traded, and recites that the 706-acre farm in Mississippi was traded at the price of $ 100 an acre, and the 122-acre farm in Mississippi at the price of $ 175 an acre, and that the 508-acre farm in Callaway county was put in trade by defendants at the price of $ 200 an acre.

The Callaway county farm was incumbered in the sum of $ 28,000. The larger farm in Mississippi was incumbered in the sum of $ 14,500. The rated values, after deducting the incumbrance in each case, left a difference of $ 2,650 balance in favor of the defendants, which the plaintiffs paid in cash.

The plaintiffs introduced evidence to sustain the allegations of the petition above set out, to show that the defendants had bought the Callaway farm for $ 65 an acre, and put it in the name of G. M. Gallemore, led plaintiffs to believe that they had no interest in it; but were agents for the owner, Gallemore; that they represented to plaintiffs that Gallemore bought it for $ 175 an acre, and that it was worth that. Plaintiffs further offered evidence to prove that the actual value of the Callaway county land was $ 65 an acre, and no more.

The defendants denied making any misrepresentation as to the purchase price of the Callaway county farm, or its value. They also introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs obtained independent information as to the value of the farm, and were not deceived by anything the defendants said in relation to it. The defendants also swore that the values were inserted in the contract at the suggestion of one of the plaintiffs, and that such plaintiff knew that those were not the real values.

The verdict was for the plaintiffs, who claim it was entirely inadequate, and not only contrary to the evidence, but contrary to the instructions of the court.

The verdict was against the defendants on their counterclaim, which related to taxes on the Mississippi land, and it need not be further noticed.

I. The issues in the present case are the same as they were on a former hearing, except that the defendants have endeavored to inject another issue by alleging in the answer that the plaintiff fraudulently induced the defendants to insert exaggerated values in the contract and in the deeds. The plaintiffs claim that this new matter alleged in the present answer does not change the issues, because there is no sufficient allegation of fraud, and because any evidence introduced under such allegations was admissible under a general denial.

It is unnecessary to consider the sufficiency of the allegations of fraud in the answer, because it seems to have been abandoned by the defendants when the case was submitted to the jury. At any rate, the record shows no evidence that the defendants were induced by any...