Edward Thompson Co. v. Schroeder
| Decision Date | 12 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 19419[83].,19419[83]. |
| Citation | 131 Minn. 125,154 N.W. 792 |
| Parties | EDWARD THOMPSON CO. v. SCHROEDER. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Becker County; John A. Roeser, Judge.
Action by the Edward Thompson Company against Peter F. Schroeder. Verdict for defendant. From denial of alternative motion for judgment or new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Evidence held to sustain the right of defendant to rescind a contract for the purchase of certain law books on the ground of fraudulent representations of plaintiff's agent, made to induce defendant to enter into the contract.
A clause in a written contract, in the language, ‘No representations or guaranties have been made by your salesman which are not herein expressed,’ does not preclude or estop the other contracting party from showing that the contract was procured by fraudulent representations.
When by a fraudulently procured contract a pecuniary obligation is thereby incurred by the defrauded party, such incurred obligation is a sufficient damage or prejudice to entitle him to rescind the contract for the fraud. Edwin Adams, of Moorhead (Taylor Crum, of Fargo, N. D., of counsel), for appellant.
Peter F. Schroeder, of Detroit, pro se.
The short facts in this case are that on September 24, 1912, defendant, an attorney and counselor at law residing in Becker county, this state, gave to a traveling representative of plaintiff a written order for certain law books published by plaintiff, namely, the Federal Annotated Statutes, and a set of the American & English Annotated Cases, for which defendant agreed to pay at the time and in the manner stated in the order. The order was subject to the approval of plaintiff, at its home office in New York, was subsequently so approved, and the books shipped to defendant. Having failed to pay for the Annotated Reports, this action was brought to recover upon the contract. Defendant interposed in defense that as to that set of books the order was procured by fraudulent representations of the plaintiff's agent, and that upon discovery of the alleged fraud defendant promptly rescinded the contract, and informed plaintiff that the books were held subject to its order. The validity of the contract as to the Federal Statutes was not questioned. Defendant had a verdict, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
[1] 1. It is contended by plaintiff that the evidence and facts relied upon by defendant in support of the claim that the order for the books was procured by fraud are insufficient in law to defeat the contract, and that the court erred in not directing a verdict for plaintiff. The contention is not sustained. It appears from the evidence, and there is no controversy about the facts, that the representative of plaintiff called upon defendant at his office in Detroit, this state, a city of between 2,000 and 3,000 people, and solicited an order for the books mentioned. Defendant inquired whether the Annotated Cases had been or were to be sold to any other attorneys at Detroit, stating that it was not the custom at the place for attorneys to duplicate in the purchase of law books, and if an order had been placed with either of the other attorneys, or a sale was to be made to them, he (defendant) did not care to make the purchase of this set of books. The agent assured him and represented that no sale was to be or had been made to the other attorneys, and that if defendant would make the purchase he would have the only set of the books in town. Defendant's purpose was to avoid a duplication of law books in the libraries of the different attorneys, and in giving the order he relied upon the statements and representations of plaintiff's agent. The representations were not true. Other sets of the same books had previously been sold to other attorneys of the place, of which defendant at the time was wholly uninformed. In this situation defendant gave the order for the books. They were shipped to him in compliance with the order, and defendant received them in due time. He soon thereafter discovered and learned the fact of prior sales to other attorneys, and promptly rescinded the contract and notified plaintiff that the books were held subject to its order. Defendant has at all times since refused to make payment on the purchase price, though he has made the required payments for the Federal Statutes. There is no dispute in the evidence. That submitted by defendant responded to the allegations of his answer, and plaintiff offered no evidence to contradict that given by defendant.
On these facts we have no...
To continue reading
Request your trial