Hodgins v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 24 April 1888
• Citation: 114 Ind. 401,16 N.E. 815
• Parties: Hodgins et al. v. Bryant.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

114 Ind. 401

16 N.E. 815

Hodgins et al.

v.Bryant.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 24, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Hamilton county; E. B. Goodykoontz, Judge.

This action was brought by Calvin Bryant against Hodgin and Thomas to recover the unpaid purchase price of a horse. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Robert Collins and Shirts & Shirts, for appellants. Stafford & Boyd, for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The material allegations of the complaint are these: That the appellee was the owner of a horse of the value of $50; that about two weeks prior to the 1st day of May, 1885, Hodgins endeavored to buy the horse, but no sale was then effected; that on that day Hodgins and Thomas falsely and fraudulently represented that Thomas would buy the horse; that Thomas was financially responsible, and would pay the agreed price; that the representations were made to induce the appellee to sell the horse to Thomas; that appellee, believing the representations to be true, did sell the horse, as he believed, to Thomas, received part of the agreed price, and for the unpaid part accepted the promissory note of Thomas; that, before bringing this action, he tendered back the note; that the defendant, at the time of the purchase of the horse, had entered into a fraudulent conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff; that Thomas and Hodgins pretended that the former was purchasing the horse for himself, when in fact he was purchasing it for Hodgins; that the plaintiff believed Thomas to be solvent, when in truth and in fact, as Hodgins knew, Thomas was notoriously insolvent; that immediately after Thomas obtained possession of the horse he delivered it to Hodgins, and pretended that he had sold it to him, when in fact no such sale was made, as Hodgins was the actual purchaser from the plaintiff; that Thomas paid no part of the consideration for the horse, but it was paid by Hodgins, nor did he receive any consideration for the pretended sale to Hodgins.

We hold the complaint good. If, as the complaint alleges and the demurreradmits, Hodgins colluded with Thomas for the fraudulent purpose of obtaining the plaintiff's property and defrauding him out of part of the purchase price by having a colorable sale made to an insolvent man, both he and Thomas are liable to the extent of the unpaid price of the horse. If Hodgins was the real buyer, and resorted to a fraudulent artifice to palm off upon the plaintiff a worthless note, both he and his...