Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 1914
• Citation: 67 Fla. 324,65 So. 1
• Parties: HUFFSTETLER v. OUR HOME LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

65 So. 1

67 Fla. 324

HUFFSTETLER v. OUR HOME LIFE INS. CO.

Florida Supreme Court

April 7, 1914

Rehearing Denied May 12, 1914.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; J. Emmet Wolfe, Judge.

Action by Our Home Life Insurance Company, a corporation, against W I. Huffstetler.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In passing upon an assignment based upon a ruling sustaining a demurrer to a plea, an appellate court will restrict its investigation to the grounds stated in the demurrer, unless the plea is so faulty as to constitute no defense to the action.

Whenever fraud is relied upon in any pleading, either at law or in equity, the allegations or averments should be specific, and the ultimate facts constituting the particular fraud relied upon should be stated with certainty and distinctness, else such pleading, upon proper attack, will be held bad.The sufficiency of pleas setting up fraud as a defense is properly raised by demurrer.

To constitute fraud, a representation must be of a specific material fact that is untrue and known to be so, and stated for the purpose of inducing another to act, upon which statement the other relies in acting to his injury.

Averments in pleas of mere opinions and promises and of indefinite matters are not sufficient to show fraud.

In averring false representations, ultimate material facts, not opinions or promises, directly affecting the transaction should be clearly and distinctly stated showing the specific representations made and relied on, the falsity of the representations, and the resulting injury to the party to whom they were made from acting thereon.

Where there is in fact a default, the omission to make an entry thereof may be a merely technical and harmless error.

COUNSELAtkinson, Gramling & Burdine, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Hudson & Boggs, of Miami, for defendant in error.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD C.J.

Our Home Life Insurance Company, a corporation, instituted an action at law against W. I. Huffstetler, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.The declaration contains three counts; but it becomes unnecessary to copy any of them since the recovery was had only on the first count, which is upon a promissory note, and is in the statutory form.To this count the defendant filed two pleas, which are as follows:

'(1) That, for a plea to the first count in the said declaration, defendant says: That plaintiff by and through its agent, by fraudulent representations, and with the intention of defrauding and harming this defendant, induced defendant to purchase fifty shares of the capital stock of Our Home Life Insurance Company, at a price of twenty dollars ($20.00) per share, and the plaintiff then and there, through its said agent, who was duly authorized, warranted to the defendant that the stock was then of the value of twenty dollars ($20.00) per share, and further warranted that the stock would advance in price to such an extent that it would be worth on the market twenty per cent. (20%) more in thirty days than the price of twenty dollars ($20.00), which the defendant was paying for the same, and that its actual market value would increase twenty per cent. (20%) within thirty days, and that thereupon this defendant, upon the sole consideration of said warranty, and relying thereon, and being induced solely by the said warranty, then and there subscribed for fifty shares (50) of the said stock at twenty dollars ($20.00) per share, and then and there executed a personal note payable to the agent of the plaintiff for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) as a parcel of the purchase price, and made and delivered to the plaintiff the promissory note for seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00) which is described in said count of said declaration for the payment of the residue thereof.That at the time of the execution of said note, and the time that defendant purchased the stock, the said stock was not of the value of twenty dollars ($20.00), and that, notwithstanding plaintiff's warranties that the market value of the stock would increase as above set out, the same has decreased in value to such an extent so that the same is not worth and is not of the market value that it was at the time defendant subscribed to the same, and executed the note for the payment thereof.This defendant is not advised of the exact value of the said stock at this time; but he avers that it is practically valueless, and that it is practically impossible to sell same at any price.That this defendant would not have purchased the said stock, nor would he have executed his note in payment thereof, had not the plaintiff warranted to him that the value of the stock would be twenty per cent. (20%) greater within thirty days.That the said stock is of little or no value at this time, and cannot be sold for a price to exceed eight dollars ($8.00) per share.

'Wherefore this defendant says that, for reason of the failure of the plaintiff's warranty, and for the false and fraudulent representations as to the value of the stock, that he is relieved from any liability on the aforesaid note, and prays that he may be hence dismissed, with his own proper costs in this behalf most wrongfully sustained.

'(2) And, for a second plea to said count, defendant says: That he executed the note sued on in the said count as part payment for fifty shares (50) of the capital stock of plaintiff corporation.That he was induced to

...