Guild v. More

• Decision Date: 09 October 1915
• Docket Number: 1915
• Parties: L. T. GUILD v. A. Y. MORE
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

155 N.W. 44

32 N.D. 432

L. T. GUILD v. A. Y. MORE

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

October 9, 1915

Rehearing denied November 29, 1915.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Cass County Pollock, J. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

A. W Fowler and Pollock & Pollock, for appellant.

"A party cannot be defrauded in being induced to do what good faith and a proper observance of his promises make it his duty to do." Marsh v. Cook, 32 N.J.Eq. 262; Herring v. Draper, 2 Houst. (Del.) 158; Farmers' Stock Breeding Asso. v. Scott, 53 Kan 534, 36 P. 978; Faribault v. Sater, 13 Minn. 223, Gil. 210; Miller v. Layne & B. Co. Tex. Civ. App. , 151 S.W. 341; Randall v. Hazelton, 12 Allen, 412; Smith v. Chadwick, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 187, 53 L. J. Ch. N. S. 873, 50 L. T. N. S. 697, 32 Week. Rep. 687, 48 J. P. 644.

"Novation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one." Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5829-5831; Re Ransford, 115 C. C. A. 560, 194 F. 658, 29 Cyc. 1130.

The burden of proof of novation rests upon the party asserting it. 29 Cyc. 1139; Schafer v. Olson, 24 N.D. 542, 43 L.R.A.(N.S.) 762, 139 N.W. 983, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 653.

It is never presumed, and the intention to create must be clear. 29 Cyc. 1138, and cases in note 68; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Olson, 10 N.D. 170, 86 N.W. 718.

A special verdict must contain all the ultimate facts upon which the law is to arise and the judgment of the court to rest. Failing in this, it will not support any judgment. Sherman v. Menominee River Lumber Co. 77 Wis. 14, 45 N.W. 1079; Beare v. Wright, 14 N.D. 26, 69 L.R.A. 409, 103 N.W. 632, 8 Ann. Cas. 1057; Hart v. West Side R. Co. 86 Wis. 483, 57 N.W. 91, 7 Am. Neg. Cas. 277; Wilson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 15 S.D. 322, 89 N.W. 649; J. H. Clark Co. v. Rice, 127 Wis. 451, 106 N.W. 231, 7 Ann. Cas. 505; State v. Hanner, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 6, and cases cited; Moore v. Moore, 67 Tex. 293, 3 S.W. 284; Bartow v. Northern Assur. Co. 10 S.D. 132, 72 N.W. 86; Bibb v. Hall, 101 Ala. 79, 14 So. 98; Carter v. Dublin Bkg. Co. 104 Ga. 569, 31 S.E. 407; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. v. Dunleavy, 129 Ill. 132, 22 N.E. 15; Rarey v. Lee, 16 Ind.App. 121, 44 N.E. 318; Ward v. Cochran, 150 U.S. 597, 37 L. ed. 1195, 14 S.Ct. 230; Morrison v. Lee, 13 N.D. 591, 102 N.W. 223.

Nothing can be taken by implication or intendment to support the special verdict; it must show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability. Garfield v. Knights Ferry & T. M. Water Co. 17 Cal. 510, cases cited in note to State v. Hanner, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 8.

The duty of preparing the verdict and of framing the issues made by the pleadings rests solely with the court. Schumaker v. Heinemann, 99 Wis. 251, 74 N.W. 785; Wilson v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 15 S.D. 322, 89 N.W. 649; Cullen v. Hanisck, 114 Wis. 24, 89 N.W. 900; Bartow v. Northern Assur. Co. 10 S.D. 132, 72 N.W. 86; Moore v. Moore, 67 Tex. 293, 3 S.W. 284.

Where the court fails to submit all the issues, such omission is not waived by failure of counsel to request the submission of additional questions. Hildman v. Phillips, 106 Wis. 611, 82 N.W. 566, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 705; Sherman v. Menominee River Lumber Co. 77 Wis. 14, 45 N.W. 1079; Orttel v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 89 Wis. 127, 61 N.W. 289; McFetridge v. American F. Ins. Co. 90 Wis. 138, 62 N.W. 938; Dugal v. Chippewa Falls, 101 Wis. 533, 77 N.W. 878.

The submission of mere representations of opinion is immaterial and improper. Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 2 L.R.A. 743, 20 N.E. 107; Sawyer v. Prickett, 19 Wall. 146, 22 L. ed. 105; Mooney v. Miller, 102 Mass. 217; Manning v. Albee, 11 Allen, 520; Wise v. Fuller, 29 N.J.Eq. 257; Wilkinson v. Clauson, 29 Minn. 91, 12 N.W. 147; Ellis v. Andrews, 56 N.Y. 83, 15 Am. Rep. 379; James Music Co. v. Bridge, 134 Wis. 510, 114 N.W. 1108; Gordon v. Butler, 105 U.S. 553, 26 L. ed. 1166; Homer v. Perkins, 124 Mass. 431, 26 Am. Rep. 677; Kimball v. Bangs, 144 Mass. 321, 11 N.E. 113; Baldwin v. Moser, Iowa , 123 N.W. 989; Western Townsite Co. v. Novotny, 32 S.D. 565, 143 N.W. 895.

"An action for false and fraudulent representations can never be maintained upon a promise or a prophecy." Union P. R. Co. v. Barnes, 12 C. C. A. 48, 27 U.S. App. 421, 64 F. 80.

Nor a mere expression of opinion, though it be false. Johansson v. Stephanson, 154 U.S. 625, 23 L. ed. 1009, 14 S.Ct. 1180; Belcher v. Costello, 122 Mass. 189; Warner v. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N.W. 179; Kimber v. Young, 70 C. C. A. 178, 137 F. 744; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; Hartsville University v. Hamilton, 34 Ind. 506; J. H. Clark Co. v. Rice, 127 Wis. 451, 106 N.W. 231, 7 Ann. Cas. 505; Welshbillig v. Dienhart, 65 Ind. 94; State Bank v. Gates, 114 Iowa 323, 86 N.W. 311; Hubbard v. Long, 105 Mich. 442, 63 N.W. 644; Milwaukee Brick & Cement Co. v. Schoknecht, 108 Wis. 457, 84 N.W. 838; Sheldon v. Davidson, 85 Wis. 138, 55 N.W. 161; First Nat. Bank v. Swan, 3 Wyo. 356, 23 P. 743; Joseph v. Decatur Land Improv. & Furnace Co. 102 Ala. 346, 14 So. 739; Knowlton v. Keenan, 146 Mass. 86, 4 Am. St. Rep. 282, 15 N.E. 127; Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U.S. 45, 23 L. ed. 203; Nelson v. Grondahl, 12 N.D. 130, 96 N.W. 299.

"Positive statements as to value are generally mere expressions of opinion and as such cannot support an action for deceit." Gordon v. Butler, 105 U.S. 553, 26 L. ed. 1166; Blease v. Garlington, 92 U.S. 1, 23 L. ed. 521; Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N.D. 423, 75 N.W. 806; Morgan v. Hodge, 145 Wis. 143, 129 N.W. 1083.

In order to rescind a contract for fraud, the proof must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing. Wadge v. Kittleson, 12 N.D. 452, 97 N.W. 856, and cases cited.

In an action for deceit, the plaintiff must not only prove that the representations were false, but also that the defendant knew they were false. Hindman v. First Nat. Bank, 57 L.R.A. 108, 50 C. C. A. 623, 112 F. 931; Kimber v. Young, 70 C. C. A. 178, 137 F. 748.

Fraud will never be presumed. Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; Klipstein v. Raschein, 117 Wis. 248, 94 N.W. 63.

That plaintiff relied upon the false representations is an essential element in a cause of action for deceit. Such element must be alleged and proved, and the burden is upon the plaintiff. It is not for the defendant to prove the negative of this. Taylor v. Guest, 58 N.Y. 262; Holt v. Sims, 94 Minn. 157, 102 N.W. 386; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 293; McCready v. Phillips, 44 Neb. 790, 63 N.W. 7; Ackman v. Jaster, 179 Pa. 463, 36 A. 324; Provident Loan Trust Co. v. McIntosh, 68 Kan. 452, 75 P. 498, 1 Ann. Cas. 906; White v. Smith, 39 Kan. 752, 18 P. 931; Curtis v. Hoxie, 88 Wis. 41, 59 N.W. 581; Montgomery v. Fritz, 7 N.D. 348, 75 N.W. 266; Nelson v. Grondahl, 12 N.D. 130, 96 N.W. 299; Bartlett v. Blaine, 83 Ill. 25, 25 Am. Rep. 346; First Nat. Bank v. Maxfield, 83 Me. 576, 22 A. 479; Cole v. Miller, 60 Ind. 463; Holton v. Noble, 83 Cal. 7, 23 P. 58; 2 Jones, Ev. § 192, and cases.

By the practice adopted in the case and by the charge of the court, appellant was, in effect, deprived of his statutory right to a finding by the jury of the facts, without passion or prejudice. Ward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 102 Wis. 215, 78 N.W. 442; Schrunk v. St. Joseph, 120 Wis. 223, 97 N.W. 946, 15 Am. Neg. Cas. 468.

When a special verdict is taken, general instructions on any subject involved should not be given. Mauch v. Hartford, 112 Wis. 40, 87 N.W. 816, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 63; Kohler v. West Side R. Co. 99 Wis. 33, 74 N.W. 568; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Hart, 119 Ind. 273, 4 L.R.A. 549, 21 N.E. 753; Morrison v. Lee, 13 N.D. 592, 102 N.W. 223; Patnode v. Westenhaver, 114 Wis. 460, 90 N.W. 467.

The special verdict should be so framed and the charge so given, that both will cover the issues for which claim is made by both parties, and not upon the sole theory of one party. Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U.S. 257, 31 L. ed. 682, 8 S.Ct. 881, 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 435; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U.S. 618, 34 L. ed. 250, 10 S.Ct. 771; Colton v. Stanford, 82 Cal. 351, 16 Am. St. Rep. 137, 23 P. 26; Farnsworth v. Duffner, 142 U.S. 43, 35 L. ed. 931, 12 S.Ct. 164; Curran v. Smith, 81 C. C. A. 537, 149 F. 951; Pittsburg Life & T. Co. v. Northern Cent. L. Ins. Co. 140 F. 888.

Proof that the complaining party inquired of others as to the subject-matter and value should be admitted as negativing the claim that he relied upon the representations. Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 293; Wakeman v. Dalley, 51 N.Y. 27, 10 Am. Rep. 551; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U.S. 609, 34 L. ed. 246, 10 S.Ct. 771; Fauntleroy v. Wilcox, 80 Ill. 477; Craig v. Hamilton, 118 Ind. 565, 21 N.E. 315.

Evidence of character should be founded on reputation previously existing, and a stranger sent to the neighborhood of a witness to learn his character will not be permitted to testify as to the result of his inquiries. Reid v. Reid, 17 N.J.Eq. 101; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 461; Douglass v. Tousey, 2 Wend. 352, 20 Am. Dec. 616.

A witness cannot testify as to outside statements made to him by others. It is hearsay and highly prejudicial in this case. 16 Cyc. 1195, 1196; Thomas v. Placerville, Gold Quartz Min. Co. 65 Cal. 600, 4 P. 641; See Russell v. Brosseau, 65 Cal. 605, 4 P. 644; Bailey v. Kreutzmann, 141 Cal. 519, 75 P. 104; Ellis v. Whitehead, 95 Mich. 105, 54 N.W. 752; Wigmore, Ev. §§ 1918--1924; Cook v. United States, 138 U.S. 157, 185, 34 L. ed. 906, 914, 11 S.Ct. 268.

Evidence which the jury are not at liberty to believe should not be submitted to them. Robb v. Hackley, 23 Wend. 52; Johnston v. Spoonheim, 19 N.D. 191, 41 L. R.A.(N.S.) 1, 123 N.W. 830; 16 Cyc. 1202--1204; Wigmore, Ev. §§ 1765 and 1788; Jones, Ev. §§ 235a, 236 and 237; Rice, Ev. 1892 ed. p. 434; Citizens' State Bank v. Christianson, 30 N.D. 182, 152 N.W. 346.

The testimony of...