Hostler v. Holland Furnace Co.

Decision Date15 September 1959
Docket NumberNo. 30268,30268
Citation327 S.W.2d 532
PartiesGatha HOSTLER (Plaintiff) Appellant, v. HOLLAND FURNACE COMPANY, a corporation (Defendant) Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

George A. Murray, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Jackson & Thomasson, Jackson, for respondent.

WOLFE, Presiding Judge.

Gatha Hostler filed a petition in equity to rescind and cancel a contract into which she had entered with the defendant corporation. A motion to dismiss the petition was filed by the Holland Furnace Company, the defendant, on the ground that the petition failed to allege any facts upon which equitable relief could be granted, and because the facts alleged showed that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law. The court sustained the motion and the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal. The petition is as follows:

'Comes now Plaintiff and for her petition says:

'1. That Plaintiff is a resident of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri and Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing as such in the State of Michigan, and doing business in the State of Missouri.

'2. That on or about May 1, 1955, Defendant by and through its agent, Herbert Matthews, offered to sell to Plaintiff, one Holland furnace, Model G-400-2.

'3. That to induce Plaintiff to purchase said furnace, Defendant, by its agent, Herbert Matthews, falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that said furnace was of great value and worth approximately $3787.80.

'4. That in truth and in fact the representations so made by Defendant through its agents were each and all false and fraudulent; that the furnace was worth approximately $800.00 installed as Defendant and its agents well knew, that representations were made for the purpose of defrauding Plaintiff out of her money.

'5. That Plaintiff is aged, infirm, and mentally impaired by reason of a recent brain operation and is wholly unfamiliar with matters pertaining to values of such equipment; that relying on said false and fraudulent representations, which were material and believing same to be true, Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer and in consideration for delivery of said furnace paid to Defendant through its agent or agents the sum of $3787.80.

'6. That Plaintiff did not discover the falsity of said representations until on or about December 10, 1957 at which time or soon thereafter, Plaintiff demanded that Defendant refund and make an adjustment of the transaction, but Defendant refused.

'7. That Plaintiff still has said property so transferred to her by Defendant and has offered to return said property or its value, but Defendant has refused to accept same; that Plaintiff is ready and willing to deliver said furnace or its value to Defendant, as the Court shall direct.

'Wherefore, Plaintiff prays:

'(1) That the Court order that the above described contract be rescinded and cancelled.

'(2) That Plaintiff have judgment in the sum of $2987.80 as the difference in the actual value of the furnace aforementioned, and the purchase price paid by Plaintiff, and interest thereon from June 1955 at the rate of 6 percent per annum.

'(3) For her costs of suit.

'(4) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem meet in the premises.'

The defendant filed the following motion to dismiss:

Defendant moves the Court that it make and enter its order dismissing plaintiff's petition herein for the following reasons:

'1. That said petition fails to state facts upon which relief can be granted.

'2. That said petition, on its face, wholly fails to allege any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Auffenberg v. Hafley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 1970
    ...promptness after discovery of the fraud. Aeolian Company of Missouri v. Boyd, Mo.App., 65 S.W.2d 111, 113; Hostler v. Holland Furnace Company, Mo.App., 327 S.W.2d 532, 534. Here, the defendants elected to retain and claim the property. There was no tender to the seller; no offer to rescind.......
  • Mackley v. Allstate Ins. Co., KCD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1978
    ...fraudulently induced contract is voidable. This basic principle of contract law has been pungently stated in Hostler v. Holland Furnace Company, 327 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Mo.App.1959) as follows: "There can be no doubt that the petition alleges fraud and deceit in the procurement of the contract......
  • Alexander v. Sagehorn, 11411
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 21, 1980 a tort action at law, or elect to rescind the contract and sue to have the same cancelled in equity. Hostler v. Holland Furnace Company, 327 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Mo.App.1959). Plaintiff has elected to have the agreement rescinded and we now consider whether there was evidence to support the ......
  • DeFabio v. Mackey
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1973 reliance upon that belief. Rescission is proper where a contract is procured by misrepresentations. Hostler v. Holland Furnace Company, 327 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.App.1959). Having found a joint venture existed, defendants who were admittedly acting together, owed an absolute duty of disclosure ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT