Haven v. Neal
| Decision Date | 26 May 1890 |
| Citation | 43 Minn. 315 |
| Parties | C. D. HAVEN and others <I>vs.</I> W. E. NEAL and another. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action brought in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover $2,700 damages for alleged fraud in the sale of logs. Trial before Young, J., who ordered a dismissal at the close of plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs appeal from an order refusing a new trial.
Gilger & Harrison, for appellants.
Hale & Peck, for respondents.
This action is brought to recover damages for alleged false and fraudulent representations, by means of which plaintiffs were induced to enter into a written contract for the purchase of a quantity of logs, at the price of $6 per 1,000, in the spring of 1886. It is alleged in the complaint that, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiffs and the firm of Cole & Weeks, who were jointly interested with plaintiffs in the venture, to enter into the contract, the defendants did falsely and fraudulently state and represent to them that all of the logs so contracted to be sold were good, sound, and smooth logs; that there was included among them a lot of 300,000 feet of large logs, of such size and quality that they were reasonably worth in the boom at Minneapolis $9 per 1,000 feet; that plaintiffs were ignorant of the character and quality of the logs, and were unable to inspect them because they were intermingled with other logs in the river, but that the defendants knew their size, quality, and condition; that the plaintiffs believed these representations, and relied upon them, and were thereby led to make the contract; but that in truth and in fact there were 300,000 feet of the logs included in the contract that proved to be unsound and worthless.
After the plaintiffs had introduced their evidence upon the trial, the court, on the defendants' motion, dismissed the action on the ground that plaintiffs had not shown either actionable fraud or damage. But we think there was evidence in the case sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury. In order to sustain an action for deceit, the fraudulent intent must be established; but it may be inferred from the fact that the false statements are made with knowledge of their falsity. And where a party who may be presumed to know, or who is in a position to know, the truth, deliberately makes unqualified representations in respect to a material matter, in such manner as to import a knowledge by him of their truth, for the purpose of inducing another to act upon them, a similar inference may arise; and, in such case, if a party has acted in reliance on such representations, he is entitled to maintain an action for the injury sustained thereby. But the question of fraudulent intent is usually one for the jury. Meyer v. Amidon, 23 Hun, 553; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 884; Hazard v. Irwin, 18 Pick. 95; Page v. Bent, 2 Met. 371; 3 Wait, Act. & Def. 436; Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N. Y. 128; Cowley v. Smyth, 46 N. J. Law, 380; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197, (20 N. W. Rep. 138.)
In this case there is no direct evidence that the defendant Neal, who made the representations, knew of their falsity; but he was one of the owners of the logs, and assumed to describe the logs as one acquainted with their character and condition, and stated that they were in the river where plaintiffs could not see them. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the logs, except his representations, which they relied on in making the purchase. Without attempting to refer to the evidence in full, it appears from the testimony, among other things, that The witness states further: Another witness states: "Neal said that the logs were of sound timber, green, merchantable lumber, and a portion of them, being cut in the vicinity of Pokegama Lake, were very much larger than the rest; that there were...
To continue reading
Request your trial