Heath v. Schroer

• Decision Date: 04 June 1906
• Citation: 119 Mo. App. 93,96 S.W. 313
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: HEATH v. SCHROER.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

96 S.W. 313

119 Mo. App. 93

HEATH v. SCHROER.^*

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 4, 1906.

1. FRAUD—FALSE REPRESENTATIONS.

Where property owned by plaintiff and subject to certain incumbrances was condemned by a city, judgment for a certain amount in plaintiff's favor less the total of the incumbrances being rendered, and to secure such judgment for a sum greatly less than its value, defendant employed an agent to obtain from plaintiff a quitclaim deed to the property by paying her a small amount through fraudulent representations that the incumbrances which would have to be paid out of the judgment would more than consume it, and, after securing such deed, secured from plaintiff an order on the city comptroller for the amount of the judgment by representing to plaintiff that she had no interest therein amounting to anything remaining over the incumbrances, defendant was liable to plaintiff for the amount of the judgment, less the total incumbrances and the sum paid by him for the deed.

2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT—FRAUD OF AGENT— LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL.

The agency of the party employed by defendant to secure the deed from plaintiff rendered defendant liable for his part in the fraudulent representations and deceptions practiced on plaintiff so far as regarded the money unjustly realized by reason of such fraud.

3. EQUITY — RELIEF ON GROUND OF FRAUD— PARTIES.

In an action for equitable relief on account of such fraud, it was unnecessary to make either defendant's agent, the grantee in the quitclaim deed executed by plaintiff, or the city comptroller parties defendant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Wm. B. Teasdale, Judge.

Action by Mary E. Heath against Gerhard Schroer. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Milton Campbell, for appellant. W. C. Culbertson and Scarritt, Griffith & Jones, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

This action is in equity, and the plaintiff prevailed in the trial court. It appears: That in the year 1902 plaintiff was the wife of Frank H. Heath, though they were not living together. At that time she was the owner of a certain lot in Kansas City, Mo., which was incumbered by a deed of trust and various special taxes and penalties for paving, sewers, sidewalks, etc., as well as general taxes. That the city of Kansas City had instituted proceedings for condemnation of said property with other lots or tracts, which resulted in the condemnation thereof and an allowance to plaintiff by the jury of $2,000, which allowance was confirmed by a judgment of the circuit court of Jackson county, whereby plaintiff was entitled to receive said sum, less the total of incumbrances to which we have referred, amounting to $930.69, leaving the sum of $1,069.31 to which plaintiff was entitled to be paid by said judgment. The defendant became aware of the existence of this judgment in plaintiff's favor and of the incumbrances thereon, and, conceiving the fraudulent design to obtain it from her for a sum greatly less than its value, he engaged or employed said Frank Heath (who was at that time plaintiff's husband but from whom she was separated, as before stated) to obtain from plaintiff a quitclaim deed to the lot by paying her $100. That said Heath, acting for defendant, induced plaintiff to sign a quitclaim deed to the lot for $100 to one Fudge, by fraudulently and falsely representing to her that the incumbrances aforesaid, which would have to be paid out of her judgment of $2,000, would more than consume it and that the $100 was more than she could otherwise get out of it. That pla...