Kirkpatrick v. Beeves

• Decision Date: 10 October 1889
• Citation: 121 Ind. 280,22 N.E. 139
• Parties: Kirkpatrick v. Beeves et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

121 Ind. 280

22 N.E. 139

Kirkpatrick

v.Beeves et al.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 10, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county; E. C. Snyder, Judge.

Action by Henry C. Reeves and others against John J. Kirkpatrick for fraudulently inducing plaintiffs to buy a jackass. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Johnson & Johnson and Kennedy & Kennedy, for appellant. Paul, White & Humphries, for appellees.

Elliott, C. J.

The appellee's complaint charges that the appellant induced him to buy a jackass by false and fraudulent representations, and on the issue joined the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the appellee. This verdict must control, unless the facts found in answer to the interrogatories are utterly destructive of it. Railroad Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 20 N. E. Rep. 135; Railroad Co. v. Clifford, 113 Ind. 460, 15 N. E. Rep. 524, and cases cited. No intendments can be made in aid of the answers to interrogatories, nor will they defeat the general verdict if they are contradictory in themselves. Redelsheimer v. Miller, 107 Ind. 485, 8 N. E. Rep. 447; Rice v. Manford, 110 Ind. 596, 11 N. E. Rep. 283; Railroad Co. v. Ostrander, 116 Ind. 259, 15 N. E. Rep. 227, and 19 N. E. Rep. 110. As the general verdict finds that false and fraudulent representations were made by the defendant and acted upon by the plaintiff, the judgment must stand, unless it can be adjudged that the answers to the interrogatories, taken as an entirety, show that there was no fraud. Railroad Co. v. Beyerle, 110 Ind. 100, 11 N. E. Rep. 6; Railroad Co. v. Savage, 110 Ind. 156, 9 N. E. Rep. 85; Smith v. Heller, 119 Ind. 212, 21 N. E. Rep. 657. We cannot, as a matter of inference, conclude from mere evidentiary matters that there were no fraudulent representations, for we cannot act upon mere statements of evidence, for such statements are out of place in answers to interrogatories, as well as in a special verdict. We can only consider the facts; and facts are more than the evidence, for they are the ultimate conclusions established by the evidence. Phelps v. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. Rep. 602, and 19 N. E. Rep. 156; Bartholomew v. Pierson, 112 Ind. 430, 14 N. E. Rep. 249; Stix v. Sadler, 109 Ind. 254, 9 N. E. Rep. 905; Railroad Co. v. Bush, 101 Ind. 582; Railroad Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186;Dixon v. Duke, 85 Ind. 434. Courts must act upon the facts stated, and not upon items of evidence improperly thrust into a special verdict, or answers to special interrogatories. Railroad Co. v. Cauly, 119 Ind. 142, 21 N. E. Rep. 546. The facts found by the jury do not warrant the conclusion, as against the general verdict, that no false and fraudulent representations were made by the appellant. It clearly appears that his statements were untrue; and therefore the only question is, were they fraudulent? And unless the facts found effectually and irreconcilably antagonize the general verdict, we must hold that the statements were fraudulently made. They were made to induce the plaintiff to buy the animal. They were relied upon, and the defendant professed to possess knowledge of their truth. Under these circumstances it cannot be asserted, in view of the conclusion embodied in the general verdict, that the representations were not fraudulent, although the defendant believed them to be true. A belief in the truth of a statement does not always clear the person who makes it of a fraudulent purpose, or relieve him from liability. The law upon this subject was thus stated in Litchfield v. Hutchinson, 117 Mass. 197: “But it is not always necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the facts stated by him were false. If he states, as of his own knowledge, material facts susceptible of knowledge, which are false, it is a fraud which renders him liable to the party who relies upon the statements as true; and it is no defense that he believed the facts to be true.” This is the rule declared by our own cases. Slauter v. Favorite, 107 Ind. 291-299, 4 N. E. Rep. 880; Furnas v. Friday, 102 Ind. 129, 1 N. E. Rep. 296; West v. Wright, 98 Ind. 335;Roller v. Blair, 96 Ind. 203;Bethell v. Bethell, 92 Ind. 318;Brooks v. Riding, 46 Ind. 15;Krewson v. Cloud, 45 Ind. 273;Booher v. Goldsborough, 44 Ind. 490;Frenzel v. Miller, 37 Ind. 1. This doctrine is held by many other courts. 8 Amer. &...