Johnston v. Shockey
| Decision Date | 19 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 19446.,19446. |
| Citation | 167 N.E. 54,335 Ill. 363 |
| Parties | JOHNSTON v. SHOCKEY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Second Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Municipal Court of Chicago; John J. Rooney, Judge.
Action by William R. Johnston against Howard G. Shockey. Judgment for defendant was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and plaintiff brings certiorari.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.Charles D. Callahan, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Plaintiff in error began in the municipal court of Chicago an action of deceit against defendant in error. On motion of the latter the statement of claim was stricken from the files, and leave was given plaintiff in error to file amended statement of claim, which he did. To this statement of claim a motion to strike was filed and sustained by the court. Plaintiff in error electing to stand by his amended statement of claim, the court dismissed the suit and entered judgment against him for costs. Plaintiff in error appealed to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the municipal court was affirmed. The cause is here on writ of certiorari. Defendant in error has filed no brief in this court.
Plaintiff in error's amended statement of claim alleges that on or about the 18th day of May, 1926, he was the owner of what was known as a resident membership in the Medina Country Club, an Illinois corporation; that he at that time applied for a perpetual membership therein, and that the defendant in error came to him and stated that he was the representative and agent of the club, and came for the purpose of inducing plaintiff in error to trade his resident membership for a perpetual membership. The statement of claim also alleges ‘that the said defendant stated and represented to him, at the time of the trade of said resident membership for said perpetual membership, that said perpetual membership was worth $3,200, and that the Medina Country Club owned in fee simple all the land bounded on the north by Irving Park boulevard, on the west by Medina road, on the south by Lake street, and on the east by a certain boundary line which was then existing, * * * and that there were no mortgages against said land or any part thereof, when in truth and in fact said perpetual membership at the time and place was worth less than $2,000, or approximately $1,450, and that the said land was not owned in fee simple, and that there was a mortgage against the north portion of said land for approximately $80,000, and that the south portion thereof was held by the Chicago Title & Trust Company.’ The statement of claim further alleges that plaintiff in error believed the representationsof defendant in error, that he relied upon such representations, that the same were material to the transaction, and that at the time they were made by defendant in error the latter knew that they were false, fraudulent, untrue, and deceitful.
The statement of claim charges that defendant in error made the representations to plaintiff in error with the intention of deceiving him and inducing him to trade his resident membership for the perpetual membership, and for the purpose of obtaining the money of the said plaintiff in error by virtue of the false, fraudulent, and untrue representations; that the defendant in error stated to plaintiff in error that the club would not pay him any commissions on the trade; that these statements were false; that the club paid defendant in error $175 commissions; that the deceitful and false statements were made for the purpose of inducing plaintiff in error to trade his resident membership for a perpetual membership; and ‘that the plaintiff relied upon said representations and acted upon the same.’ It is then charged that by reason of such untrue and deceitful representations the money and property of plaintiff was obtained. The statement of claim charges that it was the duty of defendant in error to refrain from making such false statements and misrepresentations as to value, but that, notwithstanding such duty, he did make such deceitful and fraudulent misrepresentations, to the damage of the plaintiff in error, ‘wherefore the said plaintiff became and was damaged in the difference between said $1,450, the value of said perpetual membership at the time and place of said trade, and what the same would have been worth, if the said false, fraudulent, untrue, and deceitful representations had been true.’
[1][2] The ground upon which the municipal court dismissed the cause of action, and on which the Appellate Court sustained that judgment, was that the statement of claim failed to allege that the plaintiff in error was induced to and did transfer his resident membership for a perpetual membershipin the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clayton v. James B. Clow & Sons
...obtaining knowledge of it." I.L.P., Fraud, Sec. 35; Fuller v. Garber, 296 Ill.App. 389, 16 N.E.2d 251 (1938). 90 Johnston v. Shockey, 335 Ill. 363, 366, 167 N.E. 54 (1929); Krankowski v. Knapp, 268 Ill. 183, 190, 108 N.E. 1006 (1915); Prentice v. Crane, 234 Ill. 302, 307-308, 84 N.E. 916 91......
-
Tcherepnin v. Franz
...and that the plaintiff believed these representations, reasonably relied on them and acted on them to his injury. Johnston v. Shockey, 335 Ill. 363, 167 N.E. 54 (1929); Davis v. Nehf, 14 Ill.App.3d 318, 302 N.E.2d 382 (1st Dist. Fraud may consist of the concealment or suppression of the tru......
-
GNP Commodities, Inc. v. Walsh Heffernan Co.
...consideration given less proceeds from the resale plus storage costs. See Hey v. Duncan (7th Cir. 1926), 13 F.2d 794; Johnston v. Shockey (1929), 335 Ill. 363, 167 N.E. 54. Finally, the measure of damages for breach of fiduciary duty, like that in an action for fraud, entitles the purchaser......
-
Mother Earth, Ltd. v. Strawberry Camel, Ltd.
...v. Crane (1908), 234 Ill. 302, 84 N.E. 916. The elements of the two types of actions were then blended together in Johnston v. Shockey (1935), 335 Ill. 363, 167 N.E. 54, in a manner that is worth considering in some depth. In that decision the court expressly recognized the action before it......