Humphrey v. Sievers
| Decision Date | 06 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 20,342-(159).,s. 20,342-(159). |
| Parties | FRANK HUMPHREY v. HANS H. SIEVERS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Redwood county to recover $5,400 for false representations in the sale of a farm. The case was tried before Olsen, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,300. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Frank Clague, for appellant.
John A. Dalzell and L. D. Barnard, for respondent.
In the summer of 1915, plaintiff entered into a written contract with defendant for the purchase of a farm of 140 acres in Yellow Medicine county for the sum of $15,400, and paid the first instalment of the purchase price. In September, 1916, he brought this action to recover damages on the ground that he had been deceived as to the character of the farm by false representations made by defendant. The jury returned a verdict in his favor. Defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, and appealed from an order denying his motion.
The court withdrew from the jury all the alleged misrepresentations except the representation "that this was a good farm and had raised the best crops of any farm around there every year for the last twenty years." Defendant insists that this was only an expression of opinion and a permissible puffing of his property on the part of the owner, and that a claim for damages cannot be predicated thereon. It is conceded that over 66 acres, of the 140 acres contained in the farm, lie in the bed of a former meandered lake which had been divided among the adjoining landowners; that when plaintiff looked over the farm and made his contract, in 1915, a large part of this 66-acre tract was in crop and the remainder in pasture and that, in 1916, the lake filled up again and covered his entire tract with water. The evidence would justify the jury in finding that the 66-acre tract could not be used for farming purposes except at infrequent intervals when the season was extremely dry; that in ordinary seasons it was under water; and that plaintiff, who was a stranger in that locality, had no knowledge of these facts when he made his contract. Perhaps the representations in question would not give rise to a cause of action, if the farm had merely failed to rank among the recognized good farms, or to produce the best crops in that vicinity. However this may be, we think that the statement that the farm was a good farm and had produced good crops for 20 years, coupled with the further statement that the best crops were raised on the low ground, amounted to an affirmation that the land exhibited to plaintiff as under cultivation was, at least ordinarily, capable of being used for farming purposes, and does not square with the fact that in most years nearly one-half of the land is too wet to be used for any farming purpose whatever. 12 R. C. L. 247, et seq. These representations having been made during an inspection of the land, in a season in which the greater part of the lake bed was capable of cultivation, without making known the fact that this lake bed was usually covered with water, made a question for the jury as to whether plaintiff had been deceived to his damage. Thomas v. Murphy, 87 Minn. 358, 91 N. W. 1097.
On November 19, 1915, plaintiff and defendant entered into a second written contract which extended the time for the payment of deferred instalments of the purchase price for the land; and on March 29, 1916, they entered into a third written contract, which again changed the time and manner in which such deferred instalments were to be paid. Defendant insists that plaintiff, by making these subsequent contracts, ratified and confirmed the prior contract, and thereby precluded himself from maintaining an action for the alleged fraud. One who is induced by false representations to enter into a contract, and who, after discovering the falsity of such representations, ratifies and confirms the contract while it still remains wholly executory, waives the fraud and cannot recover damages therefor. Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, 31 N. W. 52; Bartleson v. Vanderhoff, 96 Minn. 184, 104 N. W. 820; Advance Realty Co. v. Nichols, 126 Minn. 267, 148 N. W. 65; McDonough v. Williams, 77 Ark. 261, 92 S. W. 783, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 452, 7 Ann. Cas. 276, and note.
But where he has performed the contract, in whole or in part, before discovering the falsity of the representations, he may affirm the contract and bring his action for damages for the deceit. Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, 31 N. W. 52; Haven v. Neal, 43 Minn. 315, 45 N. W. 612; Stearns v. Kennedy, 94 Minn. 439, 103 N. W. 212; Ritko v. Grove, 102 Minn. 312, 113 N. W. 629.
The last rule is subject to the limitation, however, that the party deceived, after discovering the deceit, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial