Johnson v. Eagle
| Decision Date | 28 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38440,38440 |
| Parties | Grant JOHNSON and Belle J. Johnson, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Darold EAGLE, Cecile Eagle, Joe Eagle and Stella Eagle, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The elements of actionable fraud are material, false representations made with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly made without knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion, with intention they be acted upon by another, and relied thereon by another party to his injury.
2. A statement, which by itself, might be a mere expression of opinion, may be so connected with a statement of a material fact as to amount to fraud. If a material fact is misrepresented, the addition of a promise or opinion to such representation does not prevent it from being fraud, if the other elements of fraud exist.
3. Where a pleading contains allegations of misrepresentations of material facts and not mere expressions of opinion, a question of fact is thereby raised, necessitating a determination thereon by the trier of facts, and it is reversible error to strike such allegations.
4. It is error to render judgment on the pleadings where by the pleadings there is raised an issue of fact upon which a valid judgment might be rendered.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Eben L. Taylor, Judge.
Action on promissory note and for foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Motion to strike portions of defendants' amended answer sustained and defendants elected to stand on pleadings. Motion for judgment on the pleadings sustained and defendants appeal from such orders and judgment. Reversed and remanded.
Primus C. Wade, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
R. M. Cowen and Charles A. Whitebook, Tulsa, for defendants in error.
Plaintiffs filed this suit for collection of a promissory note and for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage, given as security for said note, covering part of a lot in the 'Original Town' of Tulsa. Defendants filed a verified amended answer which admitted execution of the note and mortgage but denied that the instruments were intended as binding obligations upon the defendants. In substance defendants alleged that their signatures were procured by fraud and gross misrepresentation on the part of one Darold Eagle, one of the plaintiffs, in representing that a hotel on said premises was being operated at a profit; that Eagle, on behalf of all plaintiffs, represented orally that a person named Rice was capable, had integrity, business judgment and ability; that she owned all the furniture in the hotel, and that she was not indebted to Darold Eagle; that she could and would manage the property so that defendants would not have to put any of their money into said hotel; that defendants learned after purchasing the property and leasing it to Rice that Rice was in debt to Eagle and was not the reputable manager Eagle had said she was; that defendants, relying upon representations of said Darold Eagle, entered into a lease agreement with said Rice, who was not a reputable manager for the hotel, and that the unreliability of said Rice was known to the plaintiff Darold Eagle; that but for the said representations, said defendants would not have entered into the purported mortgage arrangements.
Upon motion of the plaintiff to strike, all of the above allegations were stricken by the trial court, to which action of the court the defendants duly excepted and elected not to amend further but stand on the remaining allegations of the answer to the effect that plaintiffs promised and agreed that at the expiration of fifteen years, they would deed said property to the defendants, but notwithstanding such agreement and promise, the plaintiffs forthwith executed and had filed a warranty deed transferring the property to the defendants, all without the knowledge or consent of the defendants and wherein and whereby the defendants were further defrauded; that defendants upon their discovery of the fraud, then and there and at all times since have offered to return said property, and renew said offer.
Defendants appeal from the order striking portions of defendants' amended answer and from the judgment on the pleadings.
The decisive issue to be determined by this Court is, 'are the alleged misrepresentations contained in the allegations of fraud in the amended answer sufficient to raise questions of fact requiring a determination by the trier of facts?'
In determining this issue we must be cognizant of certain salient principles of law, which are:
The elements of actionable fraud are material, false representations made with knowledge of their falsity, or recklessly made without knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion, with intention they be acted upon by another, and reliance thereon by another party to his injury. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Palermo
...491, 495 (Okla.1974). The same elements are required to establish fraud as a defense to a suit on a promissory note. Johnson v. Eagle, 355 P.2d 868, 870 (Okla.1960). Oklahoma imposes a high standard of proof on the party alleging fraud. Fraud is never presumed; the evidence must be "clear, ......
-
Ice v. Benedict Nuclear Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 86CA1415
...of actionable fraud without making the distinction between the affirmative tort remedy and the contractual defense. See Johnson v. Eagle, 355 P.2d 868 (Okla.1960); Imperial Assurance Co. v. Joseph Supornick & Son, 184 F.2d 930 (8th Many that have recognized the distinction have nullified th......
-
LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc., 58166
...expense paid Windjammer Cruise to the Caribbean for two. Whether fraud existed is a fact to be determined by the jury. Johnson v. Eagle, 355 P.2d 868, 870 (Okla.1960). We find sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of such. Because Reflections represented an all expense trip woul......
-
Bird v. Coleman
...granted them summary judgment on the counterclaim. Coleman alleged with sufficiency a counterclaim based on fraud. Johnson v. Eagle, 355 P.2d 868 (Okl.1960). The court was not free to ignore Coleman's counterclaim and treat the allegations of fraud as a matter of defense A counterclaim is a......