Hanson v. Cline

• Decision Date: 17 December 1908
• Citation: 118 N.W. 754,142 Iowa 187
• Parties: HANSON v. CLINE ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

142 Iowa 187

118 N.W. 754

HANSON

v.CLINE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 17, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Calhoun County; Z. A. Church, Judge.

Suit to recover damages for fraud in the exchange of properties. There was a directed verdict for the defendants, and a judgment thereon against the plaintiff for costs, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.Thomas D. Healy and E. C. Stevenson, for appellant.

J. M. Parsons, J. F. Lavender, and M. W. Frick, for appellees.

SHERWIN, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. The opinion on the first appeal is reported in 136 Iowa, 101, 113 N. W. 504, where a full statement of the issues upon which the case was then tried will be found, and a full statement of the evidence bearing upon the question of fraud. We there held that there was sufficient evidence of fraud to take the case to the jury, but we reversed the case because the evidence did not support the issue presented to the jury by the trial court. As the issues then stood, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had personal knowledge of the representations made to the plaintiff, and the court instructed that, unless they found such to be the case, they must find a verdict for the defendants. There was no evidence tending to show personal knowledge on the part of the defendants, but on the contrary, the record conclusively showed that they had no personal knowledge of the quality of the Nebraska land, and on that trial of the case the issue really tried did not involve the question of such personal knowledge on the part of the defendants. It was tried on the theory that, while they had no personal knowledge, the representations made by them were in fact true and so represented to be. After the case reached the district court for retrial following its reversal, the plaintiff offered an amendment to his petition to conform to the evidence offered on the former trial, alleging that the representations made by the defendants respecting the land in question were made as matters that were in fact true, although both of the defendants Gray asserted that they had not personally visited the land. The defendants moved to strike this amendment, on the ground that it changed the issues, and this motion was sustained. Thereafter the plaintiff introduced a transcript of the evidence taken at the former trial on the part of the plaintiff, and after this was done, the defendants, without offering any testimony, moved for a directed verdict, which motion was sustained and the case dismissed at the plaintiff's costs.

There was error both in refusing to permit the plaintiff to file his amendment to the petition and in directing a verdict for the defendants. Code, § 3600, provides, in substance, that amendments may be filed in furtherance of justice, and that either party may amend his pleadings for the purpose of correcting mistakes or by asserting other allegations material to the case, or “when the amendment does not change substantially the claim or defense, by conforming the pleadings or proceedings to the facts proved.” It has been the consistent holding of this court that this statute should be liberally construed; that it is the rule to allow amendments...