Gardner v. Trenery

• Decision Date: 08 April 1885
• Parties: GARDNER v. TRENARY
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

22 N.W. 912

65 Iowa 646

GARDNER v. TRENARY

Supreme Court of Iowa, Davenport

April 8, 1885

Appeal from Plymouth District Court.

THIS is an action in equity, by which the plaintiff seeks to set aside and annul a conveyance of a house and lot, made by the plaintiff to the defendant. The alleged consideration of the conveyance was a transfer by defendant to plaintiff of the right to vend and sell a certain patent-right in certain counties in this state, and in Ross county, in Ohio. It is alleged in the petition, in substance, that the patent-right was worthless, and that the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented it to the plaintiff to be a valuable invention, and warranted it to be a useful and efficient contrivance, and that, by reason of the said false and fraudulent representations and warranty, the plaintiff was induced to convey the house and lot to the defendant. There was a trial upon the merits, and a decree was entered for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Struble Rishel & Sartori, for appellant.

Argo Kelly & Augir, for appellee.

OPINION

ROTHROCK, J.

I.

The case is triable anew in this court. An examination of the evidence shows that it took a very wide range. The fact is well established that the defendant was proprietor of a patent-right, which consisted of a contrivance designed to be used to attach a walking plow to a sulky cultivator, so as to make a sulky plow of the combination. During the spring, summer and fall of 1882, the defendant was engaged in the northwestern part of the state in disposing of the right to sell his patent in such territory as he could. He had a sulky cultivator with his patent attached, and he exhibited it at various places, and tested it in the presence of those to whom he proposed to sell territory. The plaintiff introduced evidence of alleged fraudulent sales made to others. This evidence was objected to in the court below, and we are asked to disregard it in the decision of the case in this court. It is, perhaps, correct that evidence of other fraudulent sales is not admissible for the purpose of showing that the sale to the plaintiff was effected by the fraud of the defendant.

II. It is insisted that the representations made by defendant were mere words of commendation or expressions of opinion as to the quality of his contrivance. In answer to this, we think it is enough to say that the evidence satisfies us that the...