Farr v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 22 October 1895
• Citation: 91 Wis. 182,64 N.W. 863
• Parties: FARR v. PETERSON ET UX.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

91 Wis. 182

64 N.W. 863

FARR

v.PETERSON ET UX.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 22, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Marquette county; Robert G. Siebecker, Judge.

Action by William Farr against P. H. Peterson and wife. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed in part.

The plaintiff brought his action praying for the reformation and specific performance of a certain written contract, dated July 9, 1892, for the conveyance of a certain farm in Marquette county by him to the defendant P. H. Peterson, and the correction and reformation of a subsequent deed of conveyance of said farm, dated July 14, 1892, made in pursuance of said contract, by inserting in said contract and deed, as a part of the description of the lands therein described, the words, “except the crops now standing and growing thereon,” which, it was alleged, had been omitted therefrom through mistake, inadvertence, and neglect of the plaintiff's agent, and without his fault, knowledge, or consent; and judgment was claimed for the value of said crops, they having been taken and converted by the defendants to their own use. The defendants denied the allegations of the complaint upon which the plaintiff based his right to relief, and the defendant P. H. Peterson set up a counterclaim against the plaintiff, in substance: That he bought the farm or lands of the plaintiff, described in the complaint, July 9, 1892, for the sum of $8,000. That he was not acquainted with the lands, and had never been there, and was not acquainted with the people, and knew nothing of the value of farms in that vicinity; stating that he would and did rely upon what the plaintiff said as to the said lands, or their value, as the plaintiff well knew. That the plaintiff falsely and fraudulently represented to the defendant that said lands were worth $8,000, whereas in truth they were not worth more than $2,500; that all the lands in that vicinity were worth, and would sell for, $28.50 per acre,--the sum for which the plaintiff was selling the lands in question,--whereas such lands would not, as plaintiff well knew, sell for more than $5 per acre; that said farm was well fenced; that the soil was heavy clay soil, and very productive; that there were over 150 acres under the plow, and 75 acres of meadow, and that the marsh on the farm was the best in that vicinity, and that he had cut every year 100 tons of hay on said farm; and that said farm was only four miles from Packwaukee, the nearest railroad depot, and only five or six miles from Montello, the county seat. That all such allegations were false, and made with intent to deceive, and did deceive, the defendant. It is alleged wherein and to what extent said representations were false, and that, relying upon the truth of them, he was misled into buying the farm, and paying $8,000 for it; and the defendant claimed $5,500 damages. In reply the plaintiff alleged that, before the defendant purchased the premises, he visited and examined them, and, upon such examination, accepted the plaintiff's proposition, and concluded the trade. It appeared, beyond dispute, that the plaintiff conveyed the farm to the defendant, and paid him $277, in exchange for 22 lots in the town of Greenfield, near Milwaukee, subject to a mortgage on the same for $6,375. The court found against the plaintiff upon the issue as to the equitable cause of action set out in the complaint, and, among other things, that there was no agreement between the parties, before the execution of the deed of the farm, by which the crops growing on the said lands were to be reserved; that there was no omission by mistake from the deed, such as alleged, but that the deed correctly represents the agreement between the parties; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief prayed for. The jury found a special verdict upon the counterclaim, in substance: (1) That the defendant was not acquainted with the farm, nor with the country in that vicinity. (2) He did not know the value of the farm. (3) The plaintiff made false and fraudulent representations to the defendant as to the value of the farm. (4) He made false and fraudulent representations as to the amount of hay produced on the farm. (5) That the false and fraudulent representations were made while making the contract of sale, and to induce the sale, and with the expectation and intent that the defendant would rely on them. (6) That the defendant believed them. (7) That the defendant relied upon them, and was thereby induced to enter into the contract for the purchase of the farm. The eighth question was: “Ought the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, as an ordinarily intelligent man, under the circumstances shown in this case, to have relied upon the statements and representations made to him, and have accepted such statements and representations as true, without doing more than the testimony in this case satisfies you that he did do to ascertain the truth or falsity of such statements and representations? Answer, No.” (9) That the defendant was damaged by the false and fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff in purchasing the farm. (10) If the defendant was entitled to judgment, they assessed his damages at $4,000, and interest from May, 1893. The evidence was such as to justify the court in submitting the matter embraced in the eighth question to the jury, and they were fairly and correctly instructed in the law on that subject. The evidence appears...