Cobb v. Wright

• Decision Date: 28 February 1890
• Citation: 43 Minn. 83
• Parties: FRANCIS H. COBB and others <I>vs.</I> VERNON A. WRIGHT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

43 Minn. 83

FRANCIS H. COBB and othersvs.

VERNON A. WRIGHT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 28, 1890.

Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover $3,800 damages for alleged fraudulent representations as to title to land. Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of Young, J., refusing a new trial after a dismissal ordered at the trial.

R. B. Forrest, for appellants.

Chas. J. Bartleson, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This is an action to recover damages for alleged fraudulent representations of the defendant respecting the title to real estate, by means of which, as it is claimed, the plaintiff Francis H. Cobb was induced to execute to the defendant a deed of conveyance of the property, conveying gratuitously an undivided one-third of it. When the plaintiff had closed his case, the court dismissed the action. Upon this appeal from an order refusing a new trial, we are to consider whether the case presented on the part of the plaintiff would have justified a recovery. This action relates to a block in Cobb's addition to St. Anthony. In 1856 the land embracing that now in question was owned by the plaintiff Francis H. Cobb and his father, Stephen Cobb. They platted the addition in that year, and soon after mortgaged the land to one Springer for the sum of $3,400. In 1874, in an action for the foreclosure of the mortgage, an undivided two-thirds of the land was sold under decree. That sale was confirmed by final decree in 1879. By subsequent conveyances the title acquired by the purchasers at the foreclosure sale became vested in the defendant. The conveyance to him, made in 1885, in terms conveyed the entire estate. About 1864, Stephen Cobb, who had before lived upon the land, removed from that part of the state. He died in 1874. These plaintiffs are his heirs. The land does not appear to have been occupied subsequent to 1864 by any one under whom the plaintiffs claim. They paid no taxes subsequent to 1858, and the land was several times sold for taxes. In 1886, the plaintiff Francis H. Cobb held a power of attorney from the other plaintiffs to convey any land within the territory embracing that in controversy. The defendant then applied to him for a quitclaim deed of this land. He stated to the said plaintiff that he (defendant) knew all about the title, had examined it, and had it examined by attorneys; that the Cobbs had lost their title by the foreclosure of the Springer mortgage; referred, also, to the tax-titles; said the title was complete in him, but that he wanted a conveyance to satisfy the prejudices of some Scandinavians to whom he had made sales. The plaintiff at first declined to execute a conveyance, but after repeated solicitations he did so. Prior to doing this, however, he, at the defendant's suggestion, asked Mr. Jordan, an attorney, who had previously been employed by him in some real-estate matters, if he thought the Cobbs had any interest in the land. He expressed it as his opinion that they had not. The plaintiff had no actual knowledge as to the state of the title, although he had long known that there had been a foreclosure of the mortgage, but did not know that only an undivided two-thirds of the land had been sold under the decree. He knew, also, that it had been sold for taxes. The title had been examined by attorneys, who had expressed the opinion, which had been communicated to the defendant, that as to the undivided two-thirds there was no doubt respecting the title, and that they thought that the tax-title would be sustained.

The case being such as we have indicated, we think that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. The plaintiff, in this...