Enyeart v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 23 November 1914
• Parties: M. A. ENYEART, Appellant, v. OLE PETERSON, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

170 S.W. 458

184 Mo.App. 519

M. A. ENYEART, Appellant, v. OLE PETERSON, Respondent

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Springfield

November 23, 1914

Appeal from Howell County Circuit Court.--Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

J. C Dyott for appellant.

(1) In an action for damages for fraud, inducing one to convey his land in exchange for other lands based upon fraudulent representations, as to the quality, location, and value of the other lands, the value of the land conveyed by the plaintiff for the other land is not in issue; the parties having examined such land. Boyce v. Goodrich, 154 Mo.App. 198. (2) Where fraud and mistake are pleaded as the base of the action all statements and acts leading up to the making of the contract complained of are admissible, and the instruction to the jury as set forth in the third instruction is clearly in error, and misleading to the jury. Judd v Walker, 215 Mo. 335; Burger v. Boardman, 162 S.W. 197.

N. B Wilkinson for respondent.

There were really only two issues involved in the trial of this case. And these issues being wholly questions of fact for the jury, the jury having passed upon them, and there being substantial evidence supporting their finding, this court will not say that the jury reached a wrong conclusion upon the issues submitted.

ROBERTSON, P. J. Farrington, J., concurs. Sturgis, J., concurs, except as to the criticism of the defendant's instruction above mentioned.

OPINION

ROBERTSON, P. J.

Plaintiff owned a large tract of land in Nebraska and defendant owned eighty acres in Howell county, this State. They traded farms and the plaintiff claiming to have been defrauded by the defendant, brought this suit to recover damages. Upon a jury trial a verdict was returned for the defendant and plaintiff has appealed. The parties to the suit are married women whose sons transacted most of the business which resulted in the trade.

The petition in this case first sets out in full the contract for exchange which is dated January 30, 1913, which contains a general description as to the location of defendant's land and undertakes to describe the improvements thereon. The petition then proceeds to allege that as a further inducement to enter into said contract the defendant caused to be presented the plaintiff a description of the land which represented there were other improvements on defendant's land than were described in the contract.

There are but few questions involved. One is as to the failure of the trial court to admit in evidence the additional written description of the defendant's land, and another is as to an instruction given in behalf of the defendant wherein the jury was told that this action is founded upon a written contract and that in determining the...