Hodson v. Wells & Dickey Co.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1915
• Docket Number: 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

154 N.W. 193

31 N.D. 395

JOHN A. HODSON v. WELLS & DICKEY COMPANY

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

July 2, 1915

Appeal from the District Court, Stutsman County; Coffey, J.

Reversed.

Judgment of the trial court reversed, and proceedings dismissed.

Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellant.

In the sale of lands, mere "words of praise" or "dealers' talk," even though relied upon by the purchaser, do not furnish ground for action for damages for fraud and deceit. It is the duty of the purchaser to investigate for himself. Failing in this, he takes his own chances. Kerr, Fr. & Mistake, p. 84; Van Horn v Keenan, 28 Ill. 448; Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill 111; Noetling v. Wright, 72 Ill. 391.

"A person has the right to exalt the value of his own property to the highest point his antagonist's credulity may bear," such is not actionable misrepresentation. Miller v. Craig, 36 Ill. 111; Mayo v Wahlgreen, 9 Colo.App. 506, 50 P. 43; Buxton v Jones, 120 Mich. 522, 79 N.W. 980; Stevens v. Alabama State Land Co. 121 Ala. 450, 25 So. 995; Moore v. Turbeville, 2 Bibb, 602, 5 Am. Dec. 642; 20 Cyc. 51--54; Bossingham v. Syck, 118 Iowa 192, 91 N.W. 1047; Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666, 83 P. 409; Wightman v. Tucker, 50 Ill.App. 75.

False representations by the vendor of land as to profits he has realized, quantity of timber on it, richness of the soil, value of the land, are mere matters of opinion, and are not actionable. Crown v. Carriger, 66 Ala. 590; 48 Century Dig. § 40; Ott v. Pace, 43 Mont. 82, 115 P. 37; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404; Brown v. Bledsoe, 1 Idaho, 746; Else v. Freeman, 72 Kan. 666, 83 P. 409; Tretheway v. Hulett, 52 Minn. 448, 54 N.W. 486; Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass. 99, 19 Am. Rep. 315; Davis v. Reynolds, 107 Me. 61, 77 A. 409; Armstrong v. White, Ind.App. , 34 N.E. 847; Lake v. Security Loan Asso. 72 Ala. 207; Williams v. McFadden, 23 Fla. 143, 11 Am. St. Rep. 345, 1 So. 618; Noetling v. Wright, 72 Ill. 390; Cagney v. Cuson, 77 Ind. 494; Hartman v. Flaherty, 80 Ind. 472; Shade v. Creviston, 93 Ind. 591; Picard v. McCormick, 11 Mich. 68; Doran v. Eaton, 40 Minn. 35, 41 N.W. 244; Union Nat. Bank v. Hunt, 76 Mo. 439.

No legal fraud can be predicted on "dealer's talk" or "words of praise." Heald v. Yumisko, 7 N.D. 428, 75 N.W. 806; Beare v. Wright, 14 N.D. 26, 69 L.R.A. 409, 103 N.W. 632, 8 Ann. Cas. 1057; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 905.

Where a vendee has opportunity to see and inspect a piece of land before buying, he cannot later on be heard to say that he has been deceived as to its character and value. Harvey v. Smith, 17 Ind. 272; 20 Cyc. 32; Moore v. Turbeville, 2 Bibb, 602, 5 Am. Dec. 642; Morrill v. Madden, 35 Minn. 493, 29 N.W. 193, 37 Minn. 282, 34 N.W. 25; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 293; Fisher v. Dillon, 62 Ill. 379; Buxton v. Jones, 120 Mich. 522, 79 N.W. 980; Realty Invest. Co. v. Shafer, 91 Neb. 798, 137 N.W. 873; Long v. Warren, 68 N.Y. 426; Brown v. Smith, 109 F. 26; Scott v. Walton, 32 Ore. 460, 52 P. 180; Lee v. McClelland, 120 Cal. 147, 52 P. 300; Peak v. Gore, 94 Ky. 533, 23 S.W. 356; Woodson v. Winchester, 16 Cal.App. 472, 117 P. 565; McKibbin v. Day, 71 Neb. 280, 98 N.W. 845; Long v. Kendall, 17 Okla. 70, 87 P. 670; Francois v. Cady Land Co. 149 Wis. 115, 135 N.W. 484; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404.

Opportunity to inspect precludes relief from fraudulent representations. Shepard v. Goben, 142 Ind. 318, 39 N.E. 506; Long v. Warren, 68 N.Y. 426; Wren v. Moncure, 95 Va. 369, 28 S.E. 588.

The rule of caveat emptor applies to the sale of real property. Collier v. Harkness, 26 Ga. 362, 71 Am. Dec. 216; Tretheway v. Hulett, 52 Minn. 448, 54 N.W. 486; Walsh v. Schmidt, 206 Mass. 405, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 798, 92 N.E. 496, 1 N. C. C. A. 906; Armstrong v. White, Ind.App. , 34 N.E. 847.

One cannot, in any event, be heard to say that he relied on the false statements of his vendor, when he himself knew as much about the land as the vendor. 20 Cyc. 49, 50; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 905; Collins v. Jackson, 54 Mich. 186, 19 N.W. 947; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; McKibbin v. Day, 71 Neb. 280, 98 N.W. 845; Peak v. Gore, 94 Ky. 533, 23 S.W. 356; Long v. Kendall, 17 Okla. 70, 87 P. 670; Francois v. Cady Land Co. 149 Wis. 115, 135 N.W. 484; Saunders v. Hatterman, 24 N. C. (2 Ired. L.) 32, 37 Am. Dec. 404.

The statements relied upon here to show fraud were made without the scope of the agent's authority, and are not binding upon the defendant. One who purchases real estate from a nonresident owner, through a real estate broker, is bound to ascertain not only the terms of his authority, but also the correspondence by which such authority was obtained. Merritt v. Wassenich, 49 F. 785; Roberts v. Rumley, 58 Iowa 301, 12 N.W. 323; Whart. Agency, § 163; Rice v. Peninsular Club, 52 Mich. 87, 17 N.W. 708; Chaffe v. Stubbs, 37 La.Ann. 656; Rust v. Eaton, 24 F. 830; Reitz v. Martin, 12 Ind. 306, 74 Am. Dec. 215; Hurley v. Watson, 68 Mich. 531, 36 N.W. 726; Snow v. Warner, 10 Met. 132, 43 Am. Dec. 417; Story, Agency, §§ 126, 133, and note; Dickinson County v. Mississippi Valley Ins. Co. 41 Iowa 286; Beringer v. Meanor, 85 Pa. 223; Weise's Appeal, 72 Pa. 351; Dozier v. Freeman, 47 Miss. 647; Davidson v. Porter, 57 Ill. 300; Mechem, Agency, § 137; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120, 84 Am. Dec. 611; Henry v. Lane, 62 C. C. A. 625, 128 F. 250; State, Decker, Prosecutor, v. Fredericks, 47 N.J.L. 469, 1 A. 470; Titus v. Cairo & F. R. Co. 46 N.J.L. 393; Dyer v. Duffy, 39 W.Va. 148, 24 L.R.A. 339, 19 S.E. 540; Advance Thresher Co. v. Roger, 123 La. 1067, 49 So. 709; Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624, 40 S.E. 780; Seibold v. Davis, 67 Iowa 560, 25 N.W. 778; Monson v. Kill, 144 Ill. 248, 33 N.E. 43; Brown v. Grady, 16 Wyo. 151, 92 P. 622; Bowles v. Rice, 107 Va. 51, 57 S.E. 575; Batty v. Carswell, 2 Johns. 48; Schaeffer v. Mutual Ben. L. Ins. Co. 38 Mont. 459, 100 P. 225; Devinney v. Reynolds, 1 Watts & S. 328; National Union F. Ins. Co. v. John Spry Lumber Co. 235 Ill. 98, 85 N.E. 256; Williams v. Kerrick, 105 Minn. 254, 116 N.W. 1026; Tondro v. Cushman, 5 Wis. 279; Kelly v. Troy F. Ins. Co. 3 Wis. 254; Samson v. Beale, 27 Wash. 557, 68 P. 180; 31 Cyc. 1363, 1364; Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo.App. 506, 50 P. 40; Kennedy v. McKay, 43 N.J.L. 288, 39 Am. Rep. 581; National Iron Armor Co. v. Bruner, 19 N.J.Eq. 335; Lansing v. Coleman, 58 Barb. 619; Daniels v. Bruce, Ind.App. , 93 N.E. 675; Cooley v. Perrine, 41 N.J.L. 322, 32 Am. Rep. 210; Dodd v. Farlow, 11 Allen, 426, 87 Am. Dec. 726.

"An authority to sell and convey real property includes the authority to give the usual covenants of warranty." These do not include the power to make representations as to the character or value or quality of the property. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 5402, 5777, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5958, 6345.

A broker's authority is limited simply to the procuring of a purchaser for the land. Larson v. Newman, 19 N.D. 153, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 849, 121 N.W. 204; Ballou v. Bergvendsen, 9 N.D. 289, 83 N.W. 10; Brandrup v. Britten, 11 N.D. 376, 92 N.W. 453; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924.

The principal alone, if anybody, is liable for the acts and statements of a subagent. Kuhnert v. Angell, 10 N.D. 59, 88 Am. St. Rep. 675, 84 N.W. 579; Mechem, Agency, §§ 193, 197; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 979, 981; Barnard v. Coffin, 141 Mass. 37, 55 Am. Rep. 443, 6 N.E. 364; Renwick v. Bancroft, 56 Iowa 527, 9 N.W. 367; Nelson v. Title Trust Co. 52 Wash. 258, 100 P. 730; Eastland v. Maney, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 147, 81 S.W. 574; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 985; Fritz v. Chicago Grain & Elevator Co. 136 Iowa 699, 114 N.W. 193; Williams v. Moore, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 58 S.W. 953; McKinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 6 L.R.A. 121, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 43 N.W. 800; Clark & S. Agency, § 345, (d) p. 377; Bound v. Simkins, Tex. Civ. App. , 151 S.W. 573.

It is competent for an agent to sell lands, to employ a subagent to show the lands to prospective buyers. McKinnon v. Vollmar, 75 Wis. 82, 6 L.R.A. 121, 17 Am. St. Rep. 178, 43 N.W. 800; National Bank v. Johnson, 6 N.D. 180, 69 N.W. 49; Davis v. King, 66 Conn. 465, 50 Am. St. Rep. 104, 34 A. 107; Schloss Bros. & Co. v. Gibson Dry Goods Co. 6 Ala. App. 155, 60 So. 436; Michael v. Crawford, Tex. Civ. App. , 150 S.W. 465; Tippecanoe Loan & T. Co. v. Jester, 180 Ind. 357, L.R.A. 1915E, 721, 101 N.E. 915; Wright v. Isaacks, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 223, 95 S.W. 55; Breck v. Meeker, 68 Neb. 99, 93 N.W. 993; 31 Cyc. 1427; Calhoon v. Buhre, 75 N.J.L. 439, 67 A. 1068; 31 Cyc. 1427; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 981; Bank of California v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 52 Cal. 280; Gum v. Equitable Trust Co. 1 McCrary, 51, F. Cas. No. 5,867; Corcoran v. Hinkel, 4 Cal. Unrep. 360, 34 P. 1031; Davis v. King, 66 Conn. 465, 50 Am. St. Rep. 104, 34 A. 107; Fanset v. Garden City State Bank, 24 S.D. 248, 123 N.W. 688.

"Subagent lawfully appointed represents the principal in like manner with the original agent; and the original agent is not responsible to third persons for the acts of the subagents. Fairchild v. King, 102 Cal. 320, 36 P. 649; Bank of California v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 52 Cal. 280; Smith v. National Bank, 191 F. 226; Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 5794, 5796, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 6362, 6364.

But there is nothing in the record to show that the statements made by the subagent were made with intent to deceive plaintiff. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5388, Comp. Laws 1913, § 5944; 9 Decen. Dig. "Fraud," § 58 (1); 20 Cyc. 24--27; Miller v. Howell, 2 Ill. 499, 32 Am. Dec. 37.

"Fraud is not established and relief will not in general be granted without proof that the party who...