Hoagland v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 15 March 1920
• Citation: 188 P. 42,32 Idaho 746
• Parties: EDWARD T. HOAGLAND and SARAH E. HOAGLAND, Appellants, v. A. F. GARRISON and BLANCHE M. GARRISON, His Wife, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

188 P. 42

32 Idaho 746

EDWARD T. HOAGLAND and SARAH E. HOAGLAND, Appellants, v. A. F. GARRISON and BLANCHE M. GARRISON, His Wife, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 15, 1920

FRAUD-MISREPRESENTATION-SCIENTER.

In order for plaintiff to recover in an action based on alleged fraudulent representations it must be shown, among other things, that the party making them knew them to be false or that he made them recklessly without knowledge of their truth or falsity.

[As to liability of vendor of realty for false representations innocently made, see note in Ann.Cas. 1913C, 63]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.

Action for damages and upon contract to pay an amount equal to a portion of certain indebtedness secured by mortgage. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondents.

Harry S. Kessler, for Appellants, cites no authorities.

Griffiths & Griffiths, for Respondents.

"False representations as to the condition, situation, and value of real estate knowingly made by the vendor to the purchaser are not actionable unless the purchaser has been fraudulently induced to forbear inquiry as to their truth, and in such case the means by which he has been thus induced to forbear inquiry must be specifically set forth in the declaration." (Brown v. Bledsoe, 1 Idaho 746; 20 Cyclopedia of Law & Procedure, 49; Andrus v. St. Louis Smelting etc. Co., 130 U.S. 643, 9 S.Ct. 645, 32 L.Ed 1054, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; Davidson v Jordan, 47 Cal. 351; Clarke v. Baird, 7 Barb. (N. Y.) 64, 66.)

MORGAN C. J. Rice and Budge, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, C. J.

Appellants commenced this action to recover $ 715.35, which they claim is due them as a result of an exchange of real estate with respondents.

The first cause of action is based on fraud in that, it is alleged, respondents represented to appellants that the unpaid principal of the indebtedness secured by two mortgages on a portion of the property, which was traded to them subject to the encumbrance, was approximately $ 4,500 when, in fact, it was $ 5,215.35. The second cause of action is based on an alleged promise by respondents to pay to appellants any sum secured by the mortgages in excess of $ 4,500.

These mortgages were made by respondents' predecessor in interest. One of them was given to secure the payment of $ 4,500, the other to secure the payment of $ 1,000 and the indebtedness, so secured, was payable, principal and interest, in 120 monthly instalments of $ 77 each, 18 of which had been paid at the time of the trade. Respondents had a pass-book in which the payments made were credited, and while it was a task which presented some difficulties, to one not an accountant, to compute the amount of unpaid principal, it was possible to ascertain what it was by computation from information obtainable from the pass-book and the mortgages, which were of record, and it was so computed and shown to have been $ 5,215.35 at the time the representation complained of was made.

The evidence discloses that in conversations leading up to the trade respondent, A. F. Garrison, stated to a son...