Jones v. Kinney
| Decision Date | 02 May 1911 |
| Citation | 131 N.W. 339,146 Wis. 130 |
| Parties | JONES v. KINNEY ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marquette County; E. C. Higbee, Judge.
Action by Louis Jones against George Kinney and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.Mahoney, Ryan & Kelm, for appellant.
Byron B. Park and Owen & Hanna, for respondents.
This is an action brought to recover damages for fraud in the sale of a lease of oil-bearing lands in Oklahoma. Misrepresentations alleged related to the number and capacity of oil wells on the premises, market price for oil productivity, and value in general, and it is also claimed that the defendants, under pretense of going into the adventure on a pro rata basis with plaintiff and others, received a secret rebate of $1,000 each. Error is assigned because the court directed a verdict for defendants, and on account of rulings on evidence.
We may drop out of consideration the alleged misrepresentations as to productivity and value, because such representations were largely matters of opinion, and plaintiff examined the property for himself and evidently did not rely on these representations.
[1] But there was testimony clearly tending to show that it was understood between the plaintiff, defendants, and others that they were all going in together to purchase a certain leasehold on a ratable basis; that is, each would receive in the property purchased, to be later represented by shares of corporate stock, a fractional interest in proportion to the amount of his contribution to the purchase money. The whole cost was finally fixed at $12,000 and of this $8,000 was to be paid upon transfer, remainder on deferred payment. The plaintiff relying upon this paid in his share of the $8,000, which was represented to be $500. The two defendants put in nothing, although it was agreed and understood they were to pay in $1,000 each, and to be jointly interested in that proportion in the property. The defendant Kinney claimed there was due him from the seller a commission or rebate of $2,000, and this sum was divided between the defendants; the seller returning to McNamara his check for $1,000, which the latter had already delivered. The amount of the first payment was in truth only $6,000, instead of $8,000, and neither of the defendants had in fact invested any money or paid anything for his one-eighth interest. There is evidence tending to show that all this was done without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff paid in his money in ignorance of this secret commission or rebate to the defendants.
Where several persons, by common agreement, join as buyers of property, each to acquire a fractional, undivided interest therein, proportionate to the amount paid in by him, they owe to one another in such enterprise the duty of good faith and full and fair...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Cole
...542, the Court held that the parties to the contract were co-adventurers, and then quoted the following from the case of Jones v. Kinney, 146 Wis. 130, 131 N.W. 339: "Where several persons, by common agreement, join as buyers of property, each to acquire a fractional, undivided interest the......
- Cartier v. Hengstler
-
Krzysko v. Gaudynski
...faith on the part of one interested with others in a joint enterprise. Franey v. Warner, 96 Wis. 222, 235, 71 N. W. 81;Jones v. Kinney, 146 Wis. 130, 131 N. W. 339, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 200;Goldman v. Cosgrove, 172 Wis. 462, 179 N. W. 673. The enterprises involved in these cases were carried th......
-
Rogers v. Rosenfeld
...he denies that he made the representation in question. The appellants cite Morgan v. Hodge, 145 Wis. 143, 129 N. W. 1083,Jones v. Kinney, 146 Wis. 130, 131 N. W. 339, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 200,Burwash v. Ballou, 230 Ill. 34, 82 N. E. 355, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 409,Tuck v. Downing, 76 Ill. 71,Crock......