Busse v. White
| Citation | 287 S.W. 600 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1926 |
| Docket Number | 26912 |
| Parties | BUSSE v. WHITE et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Roy D Williams, of Borneville, for respondents.
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 appellant.
Action for damages for false representations in the sale of land. The verdict was for plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,000. From the judgment entered on such verdict, plaintiff has appealed. The amount claimed in his petition as damages was in excess of $ 55,000. It is the contention of plaintiff that the verdict rendered was for a grossly inadequate amount.
This is the third appeal in this case. At the first trial, plaintiff procured a judgment for $ 1,000, and upon appeal to this court such judgment was reversed and the cause remanded, mainly because of the gross inadequacy of the damages awarded to plaintiff. Busse v. White, 302 Mo. 672, 259 S.W. 458. Upon retrial, plaintiff's damages were assessed by the jury at $ 2,096.67. Upon a second appeal, this judgment was reversed and the cause remanded, substantially for the same reasons which brought about such result upon the first appeal. Busse v. White (Mo. Sup.) 274 S.W. 1046. After practically a similar result upon the third trial, plaintiff is again urging the gross inadequacy of the verdict, but he now asks that we reverse the judgment only as to the assessment of damages, and that we send the case back for retrial only upon the issue of the amount of damages to which he is entitled. This is upon the theory that the liability of defendants is a matter fully and finally adjudicated.
The facts in this case are almost identical with those set forth in the opinions of Judge Railey and Judge White upon the first and second appeals, and a brief statement now will suffice. The pleadings need not be specially noticed. The admitted facts are that in the summer of 1920 plaintiff was the owner of two farms of 706 and 122 acres, respectively, in the state of Mississippi, which he desired to exchange for Missouri land. Defendants got in touch with plaintiff and undertook to make a trade with him. They secured an option upon a 508-acre farm in Callaway county, for which they agreed to pay $ 65 per acre. About the middle of July defendants exercised their option and had the title to the land conveyed to one G. M. Gallemore. He had no interest in the land, except to hold the title for defendants and to convey it as defendants directed.
On July 15, 1920, plaintiff and Gallemore (nominally for himself, but actually for defendants) executed a contract, whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase the Callaway farm at the agreed price of $ 200 per acre. The consideration was the conveyance to Gallemore of the 706-acre farm in Mississippi at an agreed price of $ 100 per acre, and the 122-acre farm in Mississippi at an agreed price of $ 175 per acre. The lands conveyed were all encumbered. Against the Callaway county land the encumbrance was $ 28,000, against the 706-acre Mississippi farm, $ 14,500, and against the 122-acre Mississippi farm, $ 6,500. The agreement, in effect, was that plaintiff was to get the equity in the Callaway county land for his equities in the two Mississippi farms and a cash payment of $ 2,650. The trade was made in accordance with the contract. Gallemore conveyed the Callaway county land to plaintiff, and plaintiff conveyed his Mississippi farms to Gallemore and paid him the additional sum of $ 2,650.
The evidence on the part of plaintiff tended to show that he was the exclusive owner of the Mississippi farms, and that his two sons, who had theretofore been plaintiffs and had been dismissed as such at the last trial, had no interest in those farms; that his son Gus Busse had seen, but had not thoroughly examined, the Callaway farm; that plaintiff had not seen it; that plaintiff had had prior dealings with some of the defendants and had confidence in and relied upon them. Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that defendants represented that Gallemore lived in Iowa and had just bought the Callaway county farm and had paid $ 175 per acre for it; that the land was worth more than that, and that Gallemore wanted more than that and would not sell for less than $ 200 per acre; that lands of that class in that part of the state were selling for $ 175 to $ 200 per acre at the time; that plaintiff believed such representations and relied thereon and was deceived thereby and purchased the land on the strength of such representations and without seeing it. Plaintiff's evidence further tended to show that the Callaway county land was not worth more than the $ 65 per acre which defendants paid for it. In fact, defendants made no attempt to show that it was worth more than that.
Except to deny their alleged false representations and to offer evidence tending to prove that plaintiff and his sons were experienced in real estate trading, the only defense seriously undertaken by defendants was to introduce evidence tending to support the following allegation in their answer:
'Defendants further state that there was a written contract entered into, signed by C. F. Busse, and in which C. H. Busse and A. F. Busse were interested, as alleged in the petition, on the one part, and G. M. Gallemore, who was the title holder for the defendants, of the other part, which was the transaction sued upon in plaintiffs' petition, to wit, said Callaway county farm for land in Mississippi belonging to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs suggested to these defendants that a fictitious value be recited and inserted in the contract and in the deeds to the real estate at a greatly exaggerated value, which was well known to all the parties; that by raising the value of their own land, and by the suggestions above set out, and for the wrongful and fraudulent purpose of procuring evidence against these defendants for use in subsequent lawsuits, plaintiffs fraudulently induced said defendants to insert in said deed and in said contract a greatly exaggerated value for said Callaway county farm.'
Thus it appears from defendants' own answer that the Callaway county farm was put in the contract at 'a greatly exaggerated value.' Under the pleadings and the evidence there was only one of two possible findings of fact for the jury to make: First, that defendants made the misrepresentations claimed by the plaintiff, etc.; or second, that plaintiff persuaded defendants to put a greatly exaggerated value upon their land for the fraudulent purpose of procuring evidence against them in a subsequent law suit. Proof of the first proposition tended to destroy the second and vice versa; that is, proof that plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial