Goodrich v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 06 March 1920
• Docket Number: 22,509
• Parties: J. B. GOODRICH, Appellant, v. LEONARD C. WILSON, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

188 P. 225

106 Kan. 452

J. B. GOODRICH, Appellant, v. LEONARD C. WILSON, Appellee

No. 22,509

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 6, 1920

Decided January, 1920.

Appeal from Cherokee district court; FRANK W. BOSS, judge.

Petition overruled and cause remanded.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. ORAL CONTRACT -- Jointly to Purchase Property -- Title Fraudulently Appropriated by One Party -- Title Held in Trust for Copurchaser. The petition alleged in substance that the plaintiff acquired information that a certain piece of real estate could be purchased at an attractive price, and proposed to the defendant that the two purchase it together whereupon it was verbally agreed between them that they would purchase it jointly or in partnership, each to pay one-half the cost thereof, and each to share alike in the expenses, profits or losses on account of the purchase; that in betrayal of the confidence and trust reposed in him by the plaintiff, the defendant with intent to cheat and defraud him bought the property himself and refused to recognize any rights of the plaintiff therein. Plaintiff tendered one-half the purchase price and demanded conveyance of a one-half interest. Held, a cause of action was stated for the conveyance of a one-half interest, and in default thereof for the decree to stand as a conveyance.

2. SAME--Statute of Frauds Does Not Apply. The transaction between the parties did not involve a purchase from either of any real estate or any interest therein, and the statute of frauds does not apply.

A. H. Skidmore, and C. B. Skidmore, both of Columbus, for the appellant.

Al. F. Williams, Charles Stephens, and Paul MacCaskill, all of Columbus, for the appellee.

OPINION

WEST, J.:

The plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to his petition. The allegations were in substance that the plaintiff acquired information that a certain piece of real estate could be purchased at an attractive price, and immediately went to work to procure it; that he ascertained who the owner was, examined the premises and improvements thereon and noted that if the buildings were torn down the value of the property would be greatly decreased, and induced the laborers to stop their work, and ascertained the value of the place and what it could be bought for; that he found that it could probably be purchased for $ 700 or less, and on the same day he consulted the defendant in reference to the two purchasing the property and elevator building thereon, the defendant then having no knowledge of the value or condition of the property; that on the same day the parties went to the premises, the plaintiff showing the defendant over them and through the building and pointing out the value of the place and the elevator building thereon, and taking the defendant into his confidence, giving him all the information he had--

"That then and there plaintiff and defendant verbally agreed with each other that if said premises could be purchased for the sum of $ 700.00 or less, that they, plaintiff and defendant, would purchase the same jointly or in partnership, each paying one-half the cost thereof, and each to share and share alike in expenses, profits or losses occurring on account of said purchase."

It was further alleged that on account of this verbal agreement the plaintiff negotiated with the owner and his agent for the purchase of the property, and employed a competent man to examine the building thereon for the purpose of ascertaining its condition, and spent $ 1 in money and one and one-half days' time in order to carry out the agreement between himself and defendant; that this examination developed that the property was in good condition and could be bought for $ 600 cash or less; that on the first day of March, 1919, and in the forenoon, plaintiff confided in defendant all the information he had touching the property; and that--

"Said defendant in the afternoon of said first day of March, 1919, in bad faith, and in betrayal of the confidence and trust imposed in him by the plaintiff with full knowledge of the value of the premises, the owner thereof, and the price same could be obtained for learned from plaintiff in confidence, unlawfully and with intent to cheat and defraud the plaintiff of his interest in his right to an undivided one-half interest in said property, contracted for the purchase of said premises for himself . . . at the contract price of $ 600.00, and that thereafter on the 5th day of March, 1919, defendant closed said deal and purchase, and obtained in his own name a good and sufficient warranty deed . . . for said premises."

It was also alleged that this deed was filed for record; that the plaintiff on the 17th day of March tendered the defendant $ 300 and demanded a deed for an undivided one-half interest in the premises, which demand was refused; that the defendant holds the title in trust for himself and plaintiff, and that the latter was the owner of one half; and that the premises, when purchased by the defendant, were worth more than $ 1,000. Plaintiff tendered and offered to pay into court $ 300 and one-half of any additional sum the defendant may have paid for the property, and asked that he be adjudged and decreed the owner of a one-half interest, and that the defendant be ordered to deliver to plaintiff a deed of conveyance, and in default thereof that the decree stand as a conveyance.

This is a very plain statement of a very rank piece of dishonesty. Without any knowledge of the ultimate facts, we say without hesitancy that if these things are true it would be a disgrace to the law to leave the plaintiff helpless and without remedy. Such conduct as is alleged here...