Humphrey v. Sievers
| Decision Date | 06 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 20342[159].,20342[159]. |
| Citation | 163 N.W. 737,137 Minn. 373 |
| Parties | HUMPHREY v. SIEVERS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Redwood County; I. M. Olsen, Judge.
Action by Frank Humphrey against Hans H. Sievers. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial denied, and defendant appeals. Order affirmed.
Where, in an action for deceit brought by the purchaser of a farm, it appeared that nearly one-half of the land lay in a lake bed and in most years was covered with water, but at the time it was examined by the purchaser a large part of the portion within the lake bed was in crop and the remainder in pasture, and that the vendor, without making known the fact that the condition of the land at that time was not its usual or natural condition, represented the farm to be a good farm and to have raised the best crops in that vicinity every year for the last twenty years, the question as to whether the purchaser had been deceived to his damage was for the jury.
One who is induced by false representations to enter into a contract, and who, after discovering the falsity of the representations, ratifies the contract while it still remains wholly executory, waives the fraud and cannot recover damages therefor.
If he has partly performed the contract before discovering the fraud, he may affirm it and bring his action for deceit; but an agreement modifying the prior contract, made after discovery of the fraud, operates as a waiver of his right to bring such action.
Plaintiff partly performed the original contract and subsequently made two contracts modifying it. Whether these modifications were made before he had knowledge of the deceit was, under the evidence, a question for the jury.
Plaintiff, having affirmed the contract, had the right to transfer his interest in the land, and did not waive his right of action for deceit by doing so.
The measure of damages was the difference between the purchase price and the market value of the land, and was not affected by the price for which plaintiff sold his interest in the land.
Defendant having testified to the value of the land which he had owned less than two years, it was not an abuse of discretion to permit him to be asked on cross-examination what he had paid for it. Frank Clague, of Redwood Falls, for appellant.
John A. Dalzell, of Morton, and L. D. Barnard, of Renville, 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 installment 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.
[1] The court withdrew from the jury all the alleged misrepresentations except the representation ‘that this was a good farm and that it had raised the best crops of any farm around there every year for the last 20 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 lies 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 this 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 Ruling Case Law, 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.
[2] On November 19, 1915, plaintiff and defendant entered into a second written contract which extended the time for the payment of deferred installments 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 installments were to be paid. Defendant insists...
To continue reading
Request your trial