Foster v. Rowley

• Decision Date: 01 July 1896
• Citation: 67 N.W. 1077,110 Mich. 63
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: FOSTER v. ROWLEY.

67 N.W. 1077

110 Mich. 63

FOSTER v. ROWLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 1, 1896

Error to circuit court, Ingham county; Charles H. Wisner, Judge.

Action by Seymour Foster against Louis E. Rowley. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

M. V. & R. A. Montgomery, for appellant.

Cahill & Ostrander, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In April, 1893, the defendant was appointed postmaster of Lansing, to succeed the plaintiff. After defendant's appointment, and shortly before taking possession, he had various conversations with plaintiff in which the subject of purchasing of the plaintiff the furniture then in the office was discussed. A new post office was in the process of construction by the government. Some time thereafter a purchase price was agreed upon between the parties, at $206.25 $100 of which was paid down, and time given for the balance. This action is brought to recover the balance claimed to be due.

It appears that the postmasters, prior to that time, had been required to furnish, and had furnished, at their own expense the furniture and equipments for the office, and the property had been passed down from one postmaster to another by purchase. The plaintiff represented to the defendant that this furniture was what was required for use, and that he could not very well get along without it in the office; that he had purchased it from his predecessor, and claimed to the defendant that it was only fair that he should buy it from him. Defendant objected to the purchase, as the new office was in process of erection, and he said he expected the government would furnish the new office. The plaintiff stated to him that he thought the government would not furnish the new office. The plaintiff testified: "I said to him I didn't know; I had never worked in a first-class office. I said I knew the government didn't furnish second-class offices; that, when he came into the new office, the office by that time would be a first-class office; and that I didn't know what the government would do with a first-class office, and in the meantime he had got to have furniture to run his office until the new post office was done." The plaintiff further testified that he told the defendant he had recently been to Muskegon and had called on the postmaster there, and been shown through the office; that the postmaster told him that the government would not furnish him with a penny's worth of furniture; and plaintiff had the impression at the time he was talking with defendant that Muskegon was a first-class office; and that he stated this fact to Mr. Rowley, with the honest belief that it was a first-class office; that, after some further negotiations, defendant took a list of the articles in the office, and wrote opposite the name of each article the price he was willing to pay for it; and that when he came to an article he did not want, he struck it out and finally remarked: "I think that is about right." Plaintiff testified, further, that he had since learned that the post office at Muskegon was not a first-class office. He was asked: "So you did inadvertently state as facts things that did not exist as facts? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you stated those things for the purpose of inducing him to enter into this contract? A. Yes sir; possibly." The plaintiff admitted that the price asked was greater than the actual value of the property, taking it as a whole, but says he told defendant that the value consisted in its being just what he wanted in the proper place, and that it was worth something to him because of that, aside from the intrinsic value. Defendant testified that plaintiff admitted to him that the property was not worth the price asked, but claimed that it was necessary for the working of the office; that he called plaintiff's attention to the fact that there was a new government building in process of construction, to be completed about January 1st, and that it seemed to him the government would put the furniture in, but plaintiff said that was not so; that, strange as it might appear, he knew the government did not furnish the buildings. Defendant also stated what plaintiff told him about the post...